Jane Edward, my great-great-great-great grandmother, was born in the Pembrokeshire village of Lampeter Velfrey on 31 May 1788. Her birth was documented in the records of Molleston Chapel, Narberth, on 04 July 1788, which names her parents as John Edward and Mary, of Lampeter. They are almost certainly John Edward and Mary Millard, who were married at Lampeter Velfrey on 15 November 1786.

Jane married Thomas Phillips, of Prettyland Farm, Coedcanlas, at Lampeter Velfrey on 05 December 1809. It is not certain how many children were born to Jane and Thomas, as no baptism records have been found, however five are known to have survived to adulthood: Mary, John, Thomas, Jane and Charles. Based on the ages and birthplaces recorded for Jane’s children in census records, we can assume that the family moved from Coedcanlas to Swansea at some point between 1821 and 1826. The family appear to have been relatively prosperous, as Thomas, a stonemason, left properties in Clarence Court and Clarence Street to each of his children in his will, which was proved on 02 September 1869. It does not, therefore, seem that there was any financial necessity for Jane to undertake paid employment, but perhaps she felt some vocational motivation to do so.

In November 1831, several public meetings were held in Swansea concerning preventative measures against cholera, and in 1832 The Cambrian reported that: “the cholera, with the consequences of tumult and disorder with which it becomes associated, continues to be the prevailing topic, almost to the exclusion of everything else” (Davies, p. 120). West Glamorgan Archives suggest that Jane was one of three women appointed as a ‘cholera searcher’ in Swansea in 1832. In this capacity, Jane was tasked with making enquiries when people died from cholera, and ensuring appropriate action was taken – as it was understood at the time – to minimize the risk of disease spreading. The means of transmission was unknown, and during 1831-2, Dr. David Nicol attended nearly 70 of those diagnosed in Swansea. Quarantine regulations and the use of military and police cordons are said to have caused panic, and there was sometimes neglect of the sick by the family and friends (Davies, p. 121). 152 residents of Swansea died during this outbreak of cholera. There were further outbreaks in Swansea in 1849 (262 deaths), 1854 (17 deaths), and 1866 (521 deaths) (Davies, p. 120); it is therefore possible that Jane may have acted in a similar capacity in 1849 and 1854.

Tom Davies states that the 1841 census records 7 nurses and 2 midwives in Swansea Borough (Davies, p. 231). Jane has no occupation documented on this census – she is living at Clarence Row with her husband, Thomas, and three younger children (Thomas, Jane and Charles) – however we know from subsequent accounts that she was working as a midwife at this time. One wonders how many other women were working in a similar capacity whose occupation went undocumented at this time. In 1851, their address is given as Clarence Street, and Jane is recorded as a 62-year-old nurse, living with her husband, Thomas, and youngest son, Charles.

From the early sixteenth century until the eighteenth century, there was an ecclesiastical licensing system for midwives, primarily to allow them to baptise newborns who were unlikely to survive, so that they could have a Christian burial (Waller, p. 66). By the early 1800s, midwifery was considered a woman’s job, however formal qualifications were not essential, and the Royal College of Midwifery (initially the Matrons’ Aid Society, and later the Midwives’ Registration Society) was not established until 1881 (Waller, p. 67). Few details concerning the early history of nursing in Swansea have survived (Davies, p. 228), however it seems that midwives were expected to take on their duties without having had proper tuition. Dr. William Bevan, a surgeon, gave evidence to a parliamentary committee on Poor Law medical relief in 1844: “He was certain that no midwife working in Swansea was properly educated for that purpose”. (Davies, p. 230) Poor people paid around 5 shillings for the services of a midwife, and Dr. Bevan thought that midwives should be working under medical supervision.

It is only after Jane’s death, on 07 June 1859 at the age of 71, that the extent of her work as a nurse and midwife begins to be recorded. Her memorial inscription, recorded in the sexton’s book for Swansea St. Mary, reads: “Sacred to the memory of Mrs Jane Phillips of this Town, Midwife, wife of Thomas Phillips Mason, who departed this Life June 7^th 1869 Aged 71 years. She, in 30 years attended to the Birth of 9000 Children”. Local newspapers reported her passing with the headline ‘DEATH OF A CELEBRITY’:

… a woman esteemed by all classes, and who must certainly be ranked amongst our local celebrities. For the past thirty years, Mrs. Phillips was most actively employed in her “profession,” and her services were sought after by ladies of high standing as well as by those in more humble sphere. For several years a register of the cases of midwifery attended to by Mrs. Phillips was kept by one of our leading chemists, and the yearly average was over 300. Mrs. Phillips having fulfilled her duties for upwards of thirty years, she thus assisted at the birth of nine thousand children – enough to populate a town of nearly double the size of Neath. Surely such a woman, being now removed from amongst us, deserves to have her name handed down for posterity, as one who rendered her day and generation much service. (Cardiff & Merthyr Guardian, 18 June 1859)

Despite scouring archive catalogues, no evidence has been found to suggest that the register of cases referred to in this article has survived, however it seems very likely that the chemist referred to here is Mr. Alewood, as a newspaper article published over 25 years after Jane’s death sheds further light on her work, and her association with this particular chemist:

… for years held the position of nurse to most of the principal families of Swansea … in the early part of the 19^th century, Nurse Phillips was practically the town doctor. She had a recipe for almost everything, and her remedies were based upon the results of lengthened and practical experience. If the children happened to be ill, Mrs. Phillips was the first person consulted, and in the other ordinary ailments that befell the inhabitants of the household, outside a broken or fractured limb, Mrs. Phillips was the guide, philosopher and friend of the domestic circle. Ladies in those days rarely thought of consulting a medical practitioner unless they happened to be young and eligible, and the doctor ditto, but their real medical adviser even under these circumstances was Nurse Phillips. It is therefore not to be wondered at, from her varied experience of her sex, and their requirements, that she should always have by her remedies for most of the evils flesh is heir to. Many of these are now forgotten, or perhaps superseded, but one still remains, and bears her name, and this, perhaps, on account of its marvellous efficacy, has done more to perpetuate her name than even the fact, that in her career she assisted at the birth of over eight thousand children. I refer to the medicine known as “Nurse Phillips’ Pills”, which even in these days of advanced medical science are considered the most efficient substitute for that nauseous but necessary oil yclept castor. Some indeed say that they are even more efficacious, for while containing all the essentials of the oil in a solid form, they are free from the disagreeable taste that renders it so difficult to take. Many years ago the recipe for these pills was acquired by Mr. Alewood, chemist, Wind-street, Swansea, by whom the pills are now manufactured, and through whose instrumentality they are not longer confined in sale to the denizens of Swansea, but scattered broadcast over the world. We understand that Mr. Alewood has registered “Nurse Phillips’ Pills” as a trade mark. During a period of fifty years Mr. Alewood and his predecessor have sold these pills and the demand is said to be increasing. (Cambrian Daily Leader, 12 June 1885)

Advertisements for Nurse Phillips’ Family Aperient Pills were appearing in local newspapers by 1876:

These excellent APERIENT PILLS are well known, having been in general use for 35 years. They are especially recommended for Females and persons of a delicate constitution they correct all DISORDERS of the STOMACH and BOWELS and promote a healthy action of the Liver; they relieve NAUSEA, SICKNESS, HEARTBURN, and ACIDITY, and other discomforts incident to mothers. They are free from everything noxious, and absolutely safe – rendering all other Aperients unnecessary, especially Castor Oil. PREPARED ONLY BY EDWIN ALEWOOD, DISPENSING CHEMIST, CASTLE SQUARE, SWANSEA. Sold in Boxes at 7½d., 1s 1½d., and 2s. 9d. (South Wales Daily News, 16 November 1876)

Around the same time, in America, Charles Henry Phillips obtained a patent for Milk of Magnesia, a product which has properties comparable to ‘Nurse Phillips’s Pills’, however I have found no evidence to suggest any genealogical connection, despite their similar products and shared surname. In the 1880s, there were numerous newspaper advertisements placed in local newspapers by Edwin Alewood for “Nurse Phillips’ Pills”, which were especially recommended to ladies during pregnancy. The pills were said to be “the only perfect Substitute for Castor Oil”, and “taken by Thousands, who testify to their never failing Efficiency”. After Edwin Alewood’s death, his widow continued to manufacture the pills. An advertisement from 1894, describing them as “The Celebrated Nurse Phillips’ Female Pills”, noted that the registered trademark was a deer on a crown, which was depicted on the label. As recently as 1932, the South Wales Daily Post was advertising Nurse Phillips’s Pills: “ATTENTION. – Have you tried Nurse Phillips’s Pills – a wonderful remedy for all female ailments ; of all chemists, 1s 3d. per box.”

There is undoubtedly hyperbole in the advertising for Nurse Phillips’s Pills, and one suspects that the anonymous newspaper correspondent in 1885 – perhaps Edwin Alewood himself – had a vested interest in promoting the product. Notwithstanding this, it seems that Jane was an enterprising woman, who was well-known in Swansea during her lifetime, with a medicinal product of her creation continuing to be sold nearly 75 years after her death.

KEY SOURCES

Birth. 31 March 1788. Lampeter. EDWARD, Jane. Recorded: 04 Jul 1788, Molleston Chapel (Baptist), Narberth, Pembrokeshire. RG4/3964. The National Archives (Kew), Great Britain. Collection: England & Wales, Non-Conformist and Non-Parochial Registers, 1567-1936. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 01 June 2025.

Cambrian Daily Leader. 12 June 1885. A Remarkable Swansea Midwife. p. 3c. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk : accessed 01 June 2025.

Cambrian Daily Leader. 17 February 1891. Nurse Phillips’s Pills. p. 1b. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk : accessed 01 June 2025.

Cambrian Daily Leader. 21 May 1894. The Celebrated Nurse Phillips’ Female Pills. p. 1c. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk : accessed 01 June 2025.

Cardiff and Merthyr Guardian. 18 June 1859. DEATH OF A CELEBRITY. p. 8f. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk : accessed 01 June 2025.

Census. 30 June 1841. Clarence Row, Swansea, Glamorgan. PHILLIPS, Jane. HO107. Piece: 1426, folio: 15, book: 3. The National Archives (Kew), Great Britain. Collection: 1841 England, Wales & Scotland Census. https://www.findmypast.co.uk : accessed 01 June 2025.

Census. 30 March 1851. Clarence Street, Swansea, Glamorgan. PHILLIPS, Jane (wife). HO107. Piece: 2466, folio: 186, ED: 5, page: 42, schedule number: 186. The National Archives (Kew), Great Britain. Collection: 1851 Wales Census. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 01 June 2025.

Davies, Tom (2019) To Stand By The Sickbed: Towards a History of Medical Practice in Swansea. Y Lolfa (Talybont).

Marriage. 15 November 1786. Lampeter Velfrey, Pembrokeshire. EDWARD, John and MILLARD, Mary. Collection: Pembrokeshire, Wales, Anglican Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1599-1994. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 01 June 2025.

Marriage. 05 December 1809. Lampeter Velfrey, Pembrokeshire. PHILLIPS, Thomas and EDWARD, Jane. Collection: Pembrokeshire, Wales, Anglican Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1599-1994. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 01 June 2025.

South Wales Daily News. 16 November 1876. Nurse Phillips’s Family Aperient Pills. p. 7e. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk : accessed 01 June 2025.

Waller, Ian (2024) How our ancestors coped with illness and death. Volume 1: Medical Practices, Professions and Pioneers. Family History Books (Sheringham).

West Glamorgan Archives (2024). Cholera Searchers, 1832. D/D WCR S 1/113. 17 August 1832. https://www.swansea.gov.uk/womencholerasearchers : accessed 01 June 2025.

West Glamorgan Archives (2024). Jane Phillips of Swansea, midwife, 1859. Swansea St Marys, Sextons Book. https://www.swansea.gov.uk/womenjanephillips : accessed 01 June 2025.

Will. Dated 04 September 1868. Proved 02 September 1869. PHILLIPS, Thomas. Swansea. Died 12 July 1869. Copy of will obtained from https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/

Between January 1861 and June 1889, there were 335 burials in the Devon village of Sampford Peverell with the cause of death recorded in the parish register by Reverend George William Rossiter Ireland (with one notable exception, his wife Mary Eliza Ireland, who was buried on 31 August 1870).

300 of these burials were for people resident in the village at the time of their death and the data that can be extracted from the parish register provides insight into the state of health in the village during this period. There are 20 fatalities from tuberculosis, with an average age at death of 28, including Sarah SAUNDERS: “many years suffering from phthisis – wife of Mark Saunders”. Poor Mark was almost married again, to widowed Caroline GOFFIN, in 1863, but the parish register records that she “caught cold – and was soon removed” (her cause of death is recorded as nephritis) before the marriage could take place.

There are accounts of accidental deaths – Henry HILL was “killed in the full prime of Health and strength by the wheel of his Cart going over his neck” – and William WEBBER has “2 wives buried at Sampford were killed in the same way down the same stair in 18 years”. There is evidence, too, of the record keepers paying attention to updated classification systems, with no ‘sudden visitations from God’ (“suddenly visitatio dei”) after the 1869 Nomenclature of Diseases was published and deaths from “debility”, of which there were 20 between 1861 and 1868, also disappear after this date, although two are recorded in the 1880s. It is, however, the 1864 scarlet fever outbreak in the village with which this article is principally concerned.

Scarlet fever is caused by streptococcus bacteria and is spread by droplets in the breath, coughing and sneezing. Before antibiotics were available, mortality rates were typically in the region of 20% and survivors may be left with organ damage. My own childhood memory of having ‘scarlatina’ in the early 1980s is of feeling generally unwell and banana-flavoured antibiotic medicine. The real trauma of the experience for me was not the illness itself, but having to postpone my birthday party until a later date. The experience of the children of Sampford Peverell in 1864 was altogether more perilous. In that year, there were 18 burials in the village with ‘febris rubra’ (i.e. scarlet fever) recorded as the cause of death, 16 of which were children under the age of 10. The vicar, miscounting the entries, notes in the parish register: “27 Interments in Sampford Peverell in 1864. 19 in Fever alone. What a year of sickness it has been. The will of the Lord be done.”

“PUBLIC HEALTH ENDANGERED. Scarlet fever is raging in this place …” the Tiverton Gazette & East Devon Herald reported on 24 May 1864. They attributed the spread of disease to poor drainage in the village and lamented that the Rector, Rev. G. Ireland, “himself a highly educated medical man” did not have sufficient authority: “Any word of suggestion of his is only regarded as an impertinent interference, therefore he abstains”. The article goes on to note that: “a boy who died of fever was kept four days before burial … in the same house a brother, a young married man, expired of fever just as the service in the churchyard had ended”. Referring to the parish register, we can see that this refers to Edwin and William TREVILLIAN, the latter being the only adult to die from scarlet fever during this outbreak in the village.

Sampford Peverell resident Arthur TAYLOR was not impressed by this report and wrote to the paper, in a letter published the following week, saying: “Now if the object of the writer is to frighten the whole village … then the author has devised an excellent method of success”, proclaiming the village of Sampford Peverell as “one of the most healthy in England“. Arthur TAYLOR said that the disease was epidemic in many towns and cities, and that there had been over 30 people affected by the disease in Sampford Peverell by this time, but only nine fatalities. This is contradicted by the parish register, which had recorded 12 burials relating to deaths from febris rubra by this time. It may be worth noting here that no-one in the TAYLOR family died from scarlet fever in 1864, indeed, they were relatively lucky in terms of childhood mortality, with only one infant burial recorded over a thirty year period.

One family particularly affected by the outbreak of scarlet fever in 1864 were the GOFFINs. Edwin and Elizabeth GOFFIN lost two children – Frederick James aged 4 and Blanche aged 3 – from febris rubra. The same year, Elizabeth died from smallpox (the only death from this cause recorded in the parish register). The tragedy of this year may provide some context for Edwin’s own death, from delirium tremens at the age of 48, in 1878. There is, however, an interesting post-script to this story. The GOFFINs had another child, Jane, who was born on 31 January 1863 and escaped the fate of her older siblings. She was not baptised until 1866, as Jane Elizabeth Blanche GOFFIN, taking the names of her late mother and sister – which are not included in her birth registration – as middle names. She appears to have been raised by her maternal grandmother, with whom she was living at the time of the 1871 census, and in adult life pursued a career as a nurse. Jane never married and lived well into old age, eventually dying in 1952. She left a legacy to the villagers of Sampford Peverell. From 1964 to 1996, there was a charity registered in the name of Jane Elizabeth Blanche GOFFIN for “providing relief for sick and necessitous poor persons in Sampford Peverell”.

One question raised during the scarlet fever outbreak in Sampford Peverell will be familiar to readers living through the COVID-19 pandemic today: should the children be going to school? On 3 June 1864, the Western Times reported that “False rumours that the scarlet fever is “raging” in the locality have been in circulation lately”, which the Headmaster backing up the earlier claims made by Arthur TAYLOR about the excellent state of health in the village. In the Tiverton Gazette & East Devon Herald on 19 July 1864, it was claimed that the village had been completely free from fever for four weeks and that parents should not fear sending their children to school. Again, the parish register contradicts claims made in the newspaper, with the burial of fourteen month old Mary Ann COCHRAN, who had died from febris rubra, recorded on 13 July 1864. There were four further deaths of children from scarlet fever in the village before the end of the year, and then none until 1875. It seems likely that most of the surviving children had probably suffered from the illness during this outbreak and it was not until a new, unexposed generation came along that it would cause further fatalities, although nowhere near the extent of the 1864 mortality rate.

My own ancestors, the KERSLAKE family, lived in Sampford Peverell during the scarlet fever outbreak of 1864. There is no record of any deaths from febris rubra among their number, nor did any of them see fit to express opinions about it in the local newspapers. Nonetheless, they would have experienced the fear and heartbreak of their friends and neighbours, with younger family members possibly contracting and surviving the infection themselves. It is, therefore, an episode which has been recorded in my family history narrative, not because there are any records relating to the family’s particular circumstances in 1864, but because it is always worthwhile recording what was happening in the communities where our ancestors lived, in order to provide a broader perspective of their lives and experiences.

Sampford Peverell burial register can be viewed on FindMyPast. Newspaper articles via the British Newspaper Archive. Reference to Jane Elizabeth Blanche GOFFIN’s charity via the Devon Archives and Local Studies catalogue.

Elizabeth Louisa BEVAN, my great-great-great grandmother, was born in 1843, the eldest of at least eight children of Charles BEVAN and Elizabeth GRIFFIN. Her father was a butcher by trade, working in Stoke Bishop and Westbury-on-Trym. He later took over from her maternal grandfather, John GRIFFIN, as landlord of the Three Stars on Stoke Road.

Charles BEVAN came from a long line of butchers. His father, Edward BEVAN, was admitted as a burgess in Bristol on 8 October 1812 “for that he married Elizabeth the daughter of Thomas Barnett Granger Butcher”. Thomas Barnett GRANGER was admitted as burgess on 5 February 1781 as the son of William GRANGER, a butcher. Thomas married Elizabeth PERRIN, whose father William PERRIN was a butcher in Monmouth, as was her maternal grandfather, Edward HARRIS.

Elizabeth Louisa BEVAN married James ROWLEY on 25 March 1865 in Westbury-on-Trym. At the time of their marriage, he was a gardener, however he subsequently became a butcher, presumably helped by the family connection to the trade, and was pursuing this line of work by the time of the 1871 census, on which Elizabeth’s occupation is recorded as “butcher’s wife”.

The family’s circumstances were to change dramatically, however, when James ROWLEY died from delirium tremens on 2 February 1880, while Elizabeth was almost six months’ pregnant with their sixth child. One wonders about the extent of James’ alcohol consumption, as excess drinking is implied by his cause of death. Would he be considered an alcoholic? For how long did this persist and to what extent was he able to support Elizabeth and the family business? Did he have easier access to alcohol at the public house run by his father-in-law?

Whatever the circumstances, Elizabeth was not, however, about to take the role of a destitute widow and, despite having six dependent children, was working as a butcher in her own right in Westbury-on-Trym by the following year, as recorded on the 1881 census.

ELIZABETH IN BUSINESS AS A BUTCHER

Family connections to the trade undoubtedly played a part in Elizabeth’s decision to continue working as a butcher after her husband’s death and one imagines the extended family might have helped to some degree. The continuance of the business, however, was not without seeking support with raising the children. In 1884 the Bristol Mercury carried an advertisement for a “NURSE GIRL, about 16, fond of children. Good reference required” for Mrs. Rowley, Butcher, Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol. This girl would, presumably, be taking care of the younger children while Elizabeth was working.

Elizabeth appears as “Rowley Elizabeth (Mrs.), butcher” in several editions of Kelly’s Directory and there are a number of examples of Elizabeth advertising stock for sale – or seeking employees for the business – in the Bristol Mercury:

FOR SALE, an Ayrshire COW and CALF, four years old, good milker. Appy E. Rowley, Butcher, Westbury-on-Trym. (Bristol Mercury, 13 December 1884)

FOR SALE, a Pure-bred Four-year-old Jersey COW and CALF. – Apply Mrs. ROWLEY, Butcher, Westbury on Trym. (Bristol Mercury, 24 April 1886)

WANTED, a clean, strong, willing LAD, used to the trade, age about 16. Apply to E. Rowley, Butcher, Westbury-on-Trym. (Bristol Mercury, 8 May 1888)

WANTED, a strong willing LAD, used to the trade, age about 16. – Apply E. Rowley, Butcher, Westbury-on-Trym. (Bristol Mercury, 24 March 1890)

In 1888 Elizabeth made a claim against Jane APPERLEY of Avonmouth at Bristol County Court for money owed to her, which was subsequently resolved. In 1898, the Bristol Mercury carried a notice of sale by auction of a freehold shop and outbuildings, now void, but formerly “for 22 years occupied by Mrs. Rowley, Butcher” which was described as “commodious” and could “offer facilities for the conversion into modern Shop Property”. The advertisement noted that “The key can be obtained of Mrs. Rowley, Butcher, opposite”. Elizabeth was by no means giving up her business at this point; she owned multiple properties, as evidenced by her will made a few years later.

Despite her late husband’s apparent alcohol problem, it seems that Elizabeth encouraged her daughters to pursue a line of work in the licensed trade. In 1888 an advertisement in the Western Daily Press appeared to be seeking employment for one of the ROWLEY girls: “YOUNG Lady requires Situation as BARMAID; experienced. – Address Mrs. Rowley, Butcher, Westbury-on-Trym”.

An interesting circumstance involving Elizabeth arose in 1901, when a deposit of £500 she had made at the branch of Prescott, Dimsdale, Cave, and Co.’s bank in Westbury-on-Trym, went missing, resulting in a bank clerk being charged with embezzlement. On 2 August 1901, the Police Gazette carried a notice seeking the suspect:

JOHN SPARE LEWIS, age 43, height 5ft 8ins, complexion florid, hair and slight moustache dark, eyes supposed dark; dress, light tweed square cut suit, white straw hat with black band. A native of Bristol. Warrant issued. The above reward [of £50] will be paid by Messrs. Osborne, Vassall & Co., Solicitors, 41, Broad Street, Bristol, for such information as will lead to the apprehension and conviction of the above. Information to Supt. Cooke, Staple Hill.

Almost immediately, John Spare LEWIS was arrested at Stratford-on-Avon. According to the Western Morning News, he had “started on his holidays, visited the Glasgow Exhibition, and then was lost sight of until arrested”. He appeared at Lawford’s Gate Session where it was noted that a deposit of £500 had been made with him on 18 January 1901 by Elizabeth ROWLEY, a butcher, of Westbury-on-Trym, which could not subsequently be traced. He pleaded guilty of embezzlement at Gloucestershire Quarter Sessions, with a mitigating statement noting that he had lived beyond his means and had been speculating on Consols, which had fallen in price. He was sentenced to 12 months’ hard labour.

ELIZABETH’S WILL AND HER CHILDREN

Almost inevitably, Elizabeth’s three sons all became butchers. One imagines they might have assisted their mother from an early age and would have benefitted from her business connections. Her daughters – somewhat ironically, given the nature of their father’s demise – all married publicans. They were not deterred from pursuing a life surrounded by alcohol and those who consumed it; indeed, if the advertisement for a position as a barmaid referred to earlier is anything to go by, their mother certainly didn’t discourage them from being in this environment.

Mrs. Elizabeth ROWLEY, the lady butcher of Westbury-on-Trym, died on 18 January 1910. A report on the funeral of “Mrs. James Rowley” in the Bristol Times and Mirror on 24 January 1910 describes her as “an old and esteemed parishioner”.

Elizabeth made a will dated 4 November 1907 which was proved on 30 March 1910. I suspect this is a revision of an earlier will, made following the death of her daughter Annie on 16 March 1907 who would presumably have been included in an earlier version. The executors were her eldest son, Charles ROWLEY, and her brother, Thomas Grainger BEVAN of the White House Inn, Westbury-on-Trym (a pub with an interesting history, often referred to as “the Hole in the Wall”).

Annie Margaret ROWLEY, born in 1871, had married Edward BENNETT in 1906 and died at Waterloo Inn, King Street, Bristol. Her husband had not long taken over as landlord of this pub and the licence was transferred from Edward BENNETT to Edwin LYDDON in June 1907. There are no known children from Annie’s marriage.

The eldest surviving child, Kate Ethel ROWLEY, my great-great-grandmother, had married Thomas TAFFE at Bristol Register Office on 18 June 1892. By the time of Elizabeth’s death, Kate and Thomas had three daughters and an established business at the Post Office Tavern in Westbury-on-Trym, with Thomas also keeping livestock. Kate was left £600 in her mother’s will. This seems to have been used to purchase Bellevue Cottages, a row of six properties at the rear of the Post Office Tavern, valued at £100 each. They remained at the Post Office Tavern until Thomas’ death in 1935. Kate appears on the 1939 Register living with her daughter Gladys and son-in-law Herbert JANES at Westbury Road, where her occupation is recorded as “Retired”; she died later that year, on 27 November 1939.

Elizabeth’s other surviving daughter, Mabel Elizabeth ROWLEY had – like her sisters – married a publican. Mabel married George Herbert GOUGH on 25 February 1895 and, rather aptly – considering her mother’s profession – lived at the Butchers Arms Inn in Longwell Green from the end of the nineteenth century until her death in 1959. Mabel inherited her mother’s properties at 3 College Place and 4 Cheriton Place; however, these were placed in the hands of trustees to pay her the rents and income for life “so that she shall not during any coverture have power to anticipate such income” and were to be in trust for her children (of whom there were seven) after her death. Essentially, this meant that the property would benefit Mabel and her descendants, without her husband – or any debtors he might have – being able to make any claim to it.

Elizabeth’s eldest son, Charles ROWLEY, inherited the dwelling house, shop, slaughterhouse, yards and premises at 1 College Place, Westbury-on-Trym. He had lived there, unmarried, with his mother until her death, while working in the butchery trade. Charles also inherited a close of land near the railway station at Pilning and a messuage, shop, slaughterhouse, outbuildings and close of land at Redwick in Henbury, which Elizabeth had purchased in 1901. Charles married Johanna READY on 23 March 1911 in Tisbury and had two sons, Charles James ROWLEY and John Douglas ROWLEY. They set up home at Chestnut Farm, Charlton, Westbury-on-Trym. The 1939 Register shows Charles as a retired farmer, son Charles as a farm manager (and member of the Home Guard) and son John as a shepherd. Tragedy, however, was to befall the family on 2 December 1940, when Charles, Johanna and their eldest son were all civilian casualties of the Second World War when a bomb hit their home at Chestnut Farm. Their joint funeral was held at the parish church in Westbury-on-Trym. John Douglas ROWLEY, the surviving member of the family – known as Jack – had “sold the greater portion of his land and is giving up milk production” by the time the auction of Chestnut Farm was advertised in the Western Daily Press on 3 November 1945.

The youngest son, James Henry ROWLEY – known as Harry – inherited Elizabeth’s dwelling house, shop, yards and premises in Westbury-on-Trym High Street, where she had formerly carried on her business, which was now in the occupation of a tenant, George LINTERN. He was also left a dwelling house, shop and premises “at the top of and looking down the High Street” in Westbury-on-Trym, which was formerly a stationers and branch Post Office, but at the time of Elizabeth’s death, was a branch bank. Harry married Florence Sarah SYMONS on 20 October 1909 and was living with her parents at the time of the 1911 census. They had two daughters who lived to adulthood and a son who died in infancy. Harry and Florence later lived at East Hill Farm in Westbury-on-Trym and Highfield, Parsonage Road, Bristol, where Harry worked as a cattle dealer and farmer. At the time of his death, in 1969, Harry was living at 53 Stoke Lane in Westbury-on-Trym.

Elizabeth’s middle son, Thomas James ROWLEY, had his inheritance placed in trust. There were four houses and land adjoining the public road from Bristol to the New Passage in Henbury, which Elizabeth had purchased in 1906 and two cottages and land at Northwick in Henbury. Thomas was to receive the rents and annual income from these properties “until he shall assign charge or otherwise dispose of the said rents and annual income or some part thereof or shall become Bankrupt or shall do or suffer something whereby the said rents and annual income if payable to him absolutely or some part thereof would become vested in or payable to some other person or persons …” Thomas, like his brothers, was working as a butcher, but was a somewhat more problematic character. In 1906, the Western Daily Press reported that Thomas ROWLEY, a butcher from Redwick, New Passage, had been fined 2s. 6d. and 8s. 6d. costs for using insulting language to Mr. James HAWKINS of Rudgeway. The clue to Elizabeth’s concerns, however, can be found in his First World War pension record; he was discharged to the Army Reserve in 1916 as medically unfit for service. A medical report states that: “This patient has been well known to me for the past 10 years as a chronic Alcoholic getting attacks of drinking even to D. T. although of late he has been very much better”. It seems, then, that Thomas had followed in his father’s footsteps in terms of alcohol consumption and Elizabeth, who would have been all too aware of the potential consequences of this from her experience with his father, sought to ensure his inheritance was safeguarded as far as possible. He had six children with his wife, Agnes BREWER, who were to inherit this property after Thomas’ death, which occurred in 1921. Agnes went on to marry Alfred Ernest JENKINSON on 15 January 1932.

Whilst Elizabeth’s family connections almost certainly helped her to continue in the butchery trade after her husband died, this was by no means light work and at least some of her property was bought, rather than inherited. She did not remarry, as many women in her position might have done. I like to think that she was a smart woman who valued her independence and certainly seems to have been in a position to leave her children a reasonable inheritance. Elizabeth makes reference to “household furniture, plate, linen, china, glass, books, pictures, prints and household effects” in her will, but also “horses, harness carts and carriages and all trade implements and utensils” – meat cleavers and slaughterhouses are not the usual items found in a widow’s will, but Elizabeth was a butcher and a businesswoman, which is rather different from the circumstances of my other female ancestors.

Newspaper references are from the British Newspaper Archive – other records referred to can be found on Ancestry Copy of Elizabeth ROWLEY’s will obtained from HM Courts & Tribunal Service on 19 December 2012. Police Gazette via Last Chance To Read.

In my last post, I told the story of John MASON who lived in the “most haunted house in Monmouth”. Now we go back in time to John’s grandfather Edward MASON, who was mayor of Monmouth during a turbulent period of British history. His story, even though it occurs almost 30 years after the Gunpowder Plot, nevertheless involves gunpowder, Parliament and Catholicism …

In The Hundred of Skenfrith, volume 1 part 1 of Joseph Bradney’s A History of Monmouthshire: From the coming of the Normans into Wales down to the present time, says that: “In 1642 an order was issued to the mayor, Mason, to deliver up arms he was suspected of having in the town. He refused, and was sent in custody to London. A second order was then sent to Gwillim, the deputy mayor, who, with Taylor, one of the bailiffs and a magistrate, and Packer, an alderman, also refused, saying they did not know where the keys of a new strong door which had recently been put on the arsenal were. They were also sent to London in custody”. Clearly there was more to this story than the short paragraph devoted to it in Bradney’s history, so I decided to investigate further to find out what arms Edward MASON was supposed to be storing in Monmouth and why he might have refused to deliver them up.

THE MAGAZINE AT MONMOUTH

John Webb provides further details about the magazine at Monmouth in Memorials of the Civil War Between King Charles I and the Parliament of England as it Affected Herefordshire and Adjacent Counties (1879 – Longman, Green and Company). According to this account, the magazine had originally been under the custody of Sir Percy HERBERT, son of the Earl of Powis, who employed a person to take care of it, but Sir Percy “had incurred a charge of delinquency and was under restraint”. Whilst ‘delinquency’ might bring to mind today images of teenage bad behaviour, Sir Percy was in fact a man in his 40s who had previously served as a Member of Parliament. Sir Percy HERBERT’s mother, Eleanor, was a daughter of Henry PERCY, 8th Earl of Northumberland. Eleanor’s second cousin once removed was Thomas PERCY, one of the Gunpowder Plot conspirators and her brother, the 9th Earl of Northumberland, was suspected to have known about the plot and imprisoned in the Tower of London.

The magazine is said by Webb to have been placed in the keeping of the mayor of Monmouth, but was “as much under the command of the Earl of Worcester as if it had been in his own possession“. Henry SOMERSET was the 5th Earl of Worcester, a staunch Royalist, Catholic and major landowner in Monmouthshire. In the chapter on Oliver Cromwell (alias Williams) and Wales in Oliver Cromwell: New Perspectives (2008 – Macmillan International Higher Education), Lloyd Bowen describes the magazine as “seen to be under the malign influence of the Catholic earl of Worcester” and makes reference to “… divisions in the county over the influence of recusants in local government and a deep anxiety over control of the county magazine by Catholics“.

As far as I have been able to determine from online resources, there is no extant record identifying Edward MASON personally as a Catholic, however it would have been difficult not to associate with Catholic landowners in this part of Monmouthshire. As burgesses and occasionally mayors of Monmouth, later generations of the MASON family became involved in a matter pertaining to the Exclusion Crisis at Monmouth School and as leaseholders they appear in the records of the Forfeited Estates Commission. They held land owned by the Dukes of Beaufort (descendants of the Earl of Worcester) and had frequent business dealings with the MILBOURNE family. Members of the JONES family, from whom Edward’s grandson Hugh MASON later leased Treowen, included Sir Philip JONES, commander of the Royalist forces in Monmouthshire, who was at Raglan Castle (the family seat of the Earl of Worcester) when it succumbed to Parliamentarian forces in 1646. Even if the MASONs did not profess themselves to be members of the Catholic faith, they would have at least had some loyalty to Royalist Catholic land-owners and it seems to have been as a consequence of this that Edward MASON was summoned to London.

EDWARD MASON DEFIES ORDERS FROM THE LONG PARLIAMENT

With the Earl of Worcester under suspicion, an order was given for the magazine at Monmouth to be moved to Newport, where it could be kept at the castle controlled by Lord Philip HERBERT, 4th Earl of Pembroke, who had sided with the Parliamentarian cause. Edward MASON and the people of Monmouth were not, however, going to give up easily. Ronald Hutton recounts in The Royalist War Effort 1642-1646 (2012 – Routledge) that: “… upon the King’s move to York Parliament set about trying to transfer the county magazine from Monmouth, which like so much of the shire the Earl directly owned, to Newport, property of the rival local magnate, the Parliamentarian Earl of Pembroke. In the process it encountered stiff opposition from the people of Monmouth, to whom the arms represented security, although some gentry, perhaps from Pembroke’s faction, supported the move”.

Edward MASON and others submitted a certificate to the Long Parliament, dated 23 March 1641/2, which according to a footnote in The Private Journals of the Long Parliament: 7 March to 1 June 1642 (1982 – Boydell & Brewer – ed. Coates et al.) is preserved among the Tanner manuscripts at the Bodleian Library (I hope to have the opportunity to see it for myself on a future visit to Oxford). This source also provides an account from Sir Simonds D’EWES (who took the Puritan side during the Civil War) as follows: “MR. SPEAKER showed that he had lately received a certificate from the mayor of Monmouth, Mr. Edward Mason, and divers others bearing date at Monmouth March 23, 1641, by which he excused his denial and pretended that said magazine was safer in Monmouth than it could be in Newport. So the whole matter was referred to the committee of information … to consider further of, and it was further ordered that the mayor should be summoned to appear and that the sheriff and justices of the peace should remove the said magazine to Newport and disarm the said recusants”.

According to Webb, “Mason, the Mayor, seconded by others of the inhabitants, refused to give up the stores. He said it was an ill time to deliver the arms, since there was a difference between the King and Parliament”. If this was indeed the manner in which Edward MASON expressed his concerns, he seems to have been quite a diplomat, carefully expressing no allegiance to either side, though Webb says that Edward MASON was nonetheless detained as a prisoner in London for several weeks before being dismissed on the understanding that he would obey the orders of Parliament.

According the House of Lords journal volume 5: 10 May 1642 (via British History Online) it was ordered “That the Magazine at Monmouth shall be removed to Newport” along with other arms and ammunition belonging to the Earl of Worcester stored at Raglan Castle, Monmouth or elsewhere. Hutton says that “Herbert himself, however, proved amazingly amenable. Instead of joining the King he came to London in the summer and agreed to transfer the magazine to his rival town of Caerleon” and theorises that HERBERT’s motivation was that he did not want to openly associate himself with “a risky venture for which he and his co-religionists might be made scapegoats”.

EDWARD MASON RETURNS TO MONMOUTH

The Dictionary of Welsh Biography entry for the SOMERSET family asserts that the magazine went to Caerleon, but was later removed to Raglan Castle, however the focus of this story remains with Edward MASON, who returned to Monmouth and, in 1644, his wife Elizabeth bore their eleventh child, Ann, who was baptised on 16 September 1644 and, sadly, buried two days later. The entry below Ann’s burial in the parish register is for John HARRIS, “a soldier slayne by Ed. Massey”, which I would be inclined to think likely to refer to the Parliamentarian Edward MASSEY. I spent some time checking this out as the name was close enough to that of Edward MASON that I wanted to be sure it was not a reference to him! This is not the only entry for the burial of a soldier or trooper in this period in the Monmouth parish register, nor was John HARRIS the only one “slayne” by Edward MASSEY. A small insight here, from the parish register alone, into events that were unfolding in Monmouthshire as the Parliamentarian forces advanced in the county.

Edward MASON died shortly after making his will which was proved at the Prerogative Court of Canterbury in London on 20 June 1651 (PROB 11/217/180). Usefully from a genealogical perspective, he mentions his father, Hugh MASON, in this will, along with seven surviving children, each mentioned by name, and his wife Elizabeth. The properties and land mentioned in Edward MASON’s will appear in records relating to the family at other times and also provide useful clues for tracing his ancestors and descendants.

In terms of further research, the list of cases in the Court of Chancery relating to the MASON family in Monmouth includes Prickett v Mason (C8/115/133) which names Elizabeth MASON, widow, and Walter MASON (presumably Edward’s eldest son of that name) among the defendants in 1651 and Powell v Mason (C8/10/139) which names Elizabeth MASON, widow, Walter MASON and George MASON among the defendants in 1653. These cases may well have arisen as a consequence of arrangements made in Edward MASON’s will, as his land and property holdings were fairly considerable and numerous tenants are named therein. I am looking forward to eventually being able to spend some time at Kew to investigate these records further.

There is also an Edward MASON referred to as a gent and attorney in Monmouth who acts for William BELL of Writtle, Essex and Edward BELL of Newland, Gloucestershire in the surrender of an acre of customary meadow called Chippinham in Monmouth to the use of James COX in 1626 (Gloucestershire Archives ref: D1677/GMo/27). Edward MASON himself had “two parcells of coppie hold Land lyeing in Chippinghame within the Suburbs of Monmouth” which he left to his sons Thomas and William in his will. I have occasionally come across sources claiming that persons resident in Monmouth owned land in Chippenham, Wiltshire, on the strength of ‘Chippenham’ being mentioned in wills and other records; in the vast majority of cases, this turns out to be a reference to the meadow in Monmouth, not to the town in Wiltshire.

Edward MASON is my 11 x great grandfather, one of 8,192 ancestors in that generation. If I have any trace of DNA inherited from him at all, it is little more than a tiny scrap. Each generation, though, sets up the story of the next and of all of my ancestors this far back in time, he is one of the only ones for whom I can tell a tale beyond basic dates, places, occupations and relationships. For that, I am grateful to him for leaving a (very detailed) will and defying the orders of the Long Parliament in 1642.

Around the turn of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, my 9 x great-grandfather, John MASON, lived with his family at Bailey Pit near Monmouth, described by the Great British Ghost Tour website as “reputedly haunted by the ghosts of a cripple and a murdered maid”. This source goes on to describe phenomena including the sound of a man’s wooden leg walking on the stairs and screams emanating from the murder victim. Could John be a ghost – or even a murderer? The short answer is, I don’t know for sure, but it’s certainly interesting to explore the records relating to John and his family, as well as the spooky stories associated with their home.

There are a number of suggested sources for the story of the hauntings at Bailey Pit, including The Haunting of Glamorgan and Gwent by Russell Gascoigne (1993, Gwasg Carreg Gwalch), The Ghosts of Gwent by Alan Roderick (1993, Handpost Books) and The Hangman, The Hound and Other Hauntings (2010, Llygad Gwalch). In Haunted Wales: A Guide to Welsh Ghostlore (2011, The History Press), Richard Holland writes of “a phantom coach which trundles from Bailey Pit Farm to Wonastow Court” however it is Haunted Wales by Peter Underwood (2010, Amberley Publishing) which provides the most insight into these ghostly tales (at least of the sources I have been able to access during the current lockdown). Underwood begins his account of the haunting of Bailey Pit by citing a 1975 booklet by Stephen Clarke of Monmouth Archaeological Society: The Most Haunted House in Monmouth: “… of all the horrors of the night, of all the dark and eerie corners of this ancient town, one place, it seems stands out for the most ghastly ghostliness: Bailey Pits”.

JOHN MASON AT BAILEY PIT

John MASON and his wife Elizabeth had eight children baptised at Monmouth between 1694 and 1714: John, Thomas, Elizabeth, Clare, Edward, Margaret, Mary and Hugh. The MASON family had been established in Monmouth and thereabouts for some time prior to this date. They left wills, owned (or leased) various properties and were fond of availing themselves of the services of the Court of Chancery, all of which means that there are a good number of records available to consult and research continues to be very much a work in progress.

John’s brother, Hugh MASON, was a yeoman farmer who lived – as a tenant of the JONES family – at Treowen in nearby Wonastow. Hugh died in 1688 and his widow Mary (nee DUNN(E) or DONN) subsequently married John JAYNE (or JEYNE). Some time later, Treowen was the scene of some disruption caused by warrior monks and an alien werewolf, but we can be quite certain that was entirely fictional, as the property was used for filming Tooth and Claw, a 2006 episode of Doctor Who.

Hugh’s son, Thomas MASON, died in 1709 shortly after completing his BA at Oxford University (Wadham College) and left a will proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury (PROB 11/512/241) which makes reference to “my uncle John Mason of the hither Bayley Pitt”. A Chancery case arose following John’s thwarted attempts to execute the will (Mason v Jeyne C 10/313/20) which sheds fascinating light on the family circumstances, but for the purposes of this story it is enough to say that the Orator was “John Mason of the Baily Pitt in the County of Monmouth” and the events described include travel between Wonastow and Monmouth as well as up to Oxford and back. Could one of the phantom coaches on the roads around the Bailey PIt perhaps belong to the MASON family?

An Assignment of Judgements dated 25 August 1713 (Herefordshire Archives AW28/17/28) refers to “John Mason of Bayly Pitts” and also names William DUNN of Tredunnocke. This refers not to the village of Tredunnock in Monmouthshire, but to Tredunnock Farm in Llangarron, Herefordshire, which was the family home of Hugh MASON’s wife Mary, whose father and brother were both named William.

John MASON wrote his will in December 1714, identifying himself as “John Mason of the Bailypitt in the Parish of Monmouth” and naming all eight of his children, as well as wife Elizabeth, his brother Edward MASON (a clergyman in Herefordshire) and sister-in-law Mary JAYNE. John died not long after making this will and, one would think, may have been anticipating his possible demise at the time it was written. He was buried in Monmouth on 12 February 1714/15. As Monmouth was part of the Diocese of Hereford, his will and the associated inventory are held at Herefordshire Archive and Records Centre. The inventory, taken a week after John was buried, lists a small number of items at “the upper Baily Pitt” including some livestock, but mostly crops stored in the barn. The bulk of his possessions were at “the Lower Baily pitt” including more crops and livestock, but also household items including “Six Feather Bed with their appurtenances”, “three other ordinary Beds with their appurtena[n]ces”, brass, pewter, ironware, tables, chairs and linen. More crops and livestock were inventoried at a farm in Monmouth, but it seems likely based on this information that the family’s principal home was at the Lower Bailey Pit, since that is the only property for which household items are listed.

THE LOCATION OF BAILEY PIT

A limited preview of Peter Underwood’s Haunted Wales is available via Google Books and states that there were once three Bailey Pits: Old Bailey Pit, Upper Bailey Pit and Lower Bailey Pit. It is the latter property – where my MASON ancestors lived – which was reportedly the scene of most ghostly activity; Underwood also tells the story of a spectral coach travelling along the track and a large white ghostly stag in the area. There is said to be another phantom stagecoach, drawn by four horses, seen on the road from Rockfield into Monmouth, which appears on dark and stormy nights and crashes into a wall at Croft-y-Bwlla.

Peter Underwood describes the approach to Lower Bailey Pit along Watery Lane as “a most inhospitable roadway, dark, frequently flooded and said to be the gathering point of various troublesome spirits” and says of the house that it used to be “a large and rambling farmhouse, with thirty-two rooms and large barns and outhouses”. He goes on to say that the Lower Bailey Pit was largely destroyed by a fire in 1973, leaving little more than a blackened shell, but was subsequently bought by a property company for development. The location of Bailey Pit can be seen on the Coflein website which also includes reference to the sale of the Duke of Beaufort’s Estate at Monmouth – which included this property – in the early twentieth century.

THE CELLAR AT BAILEY PIT

The story of a murdered maid and her “spine-chilling scream” is a feature of several accounts of the haunting of Lower Bailey Pit. Underwood asserts that the cellar had been sealed up to hide evidence of this murder and kept collapsing when property developers attempted to build flooring over it after it had been opened up. There is an anecdote about an architect’s car going into Watery Lane Brook after he entered the cellar at the same place as, supposedly, a pony and trap had done 40 years before after the driver had ventured into the Bailey Pit cellar; however if someone had been into the cellar 40 years before the architect, it suggests that perhaps it was not entirely sealed up prior to the fire …

The cellar at Lower Bailey PIt was certainly in use in John MASON’s time, as the inventory records: “Item in the Celer Cider and other vessels there” valued at 3 pounds. Underwood refers to the “remnants of a cider mill” found “beneath a maze of brambles” at the Upper Bailey Pit and a brewhouse is mentioned in the inventory for John MASON. So if John was using the cellar to store his home-brewed cider and associated vessels, it was not sealed up to conceal a murder – or for any other reason – before or during his lifetime. Noting that Underwood describes Watery Lane leading to the property as “frequently flooded” it may have been the case that the cellar was apt to flood and perhaps fell into disuse for that reason. It could even be that ingress of water on a stormy night caused noises to emanate from the cellar that sounded to those present in the house as though a ghostly woman was screaming somewhere beneath them.

Whatever the truth of the matter, this was not the last of the MASON family at the Bailey Pit. John’s widow, Elizabeth, inherited the lease of the farm in Monmouth (Wysom [Wyesham] Farm), however the leases of both Upper and Lower Bailey Pit were left in John’s will to his eldest son, also named John MASON.

THE LEGACY OF THOMAS MASON

In a Chancery suit brought by Hugh MASON (son of John’s brother Thomas) in 1729 (Mason v Mason C 11/284/13), he refers to “John Mason of Baylypitt in the said County of Monmouth” in reference to John’s eldest son who was one of the ‘confederates’ along with the sons of Mary DUNN/DONN and John JEYNE/JAYNE in a dispute over inheritance of property in Monmouth. So we can be reasonably sure that John’s son of the same name was still at Bailey Pit for at least fifteen years after his death.

In 1767, John’s second son, Thomas MASON, left a will proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury (PROB 11/928/391) which leaves “unto my Brother John Mason One Annuity or yearly sum of Ten pounds to be paid him by Quarterly payments during the Term of his Natural life … And my will is that he be Interred in a Decent manner and that any said Executors do Defray the Expense and Charges of such his funeral”. The younger John MASON, by this time, was in his early 70s and it seems that his younger brother – who was rather well-off and had thrice served as Mayor of Monmouth – was seeking to ensure he was financially supported in his old age. John’s children, William and Margaret, each received twenty pounds from their uncle.

Thomas clearly wanted to ensure his brother was well provided for in his old age and given a decent burial, which suggests perhaps that John might not have been able to afford this for himself. Thomas MASON left sums of money ranging between twenty pounds and one hundred pounds to various nieces and nephews (his will is a treasure from a genealogical perspective) and my own direct ancestors, Edward HARRIS and William PERRIN, did well from Thomas’ legacies in terms of property inheritance. Even his maid, Ann GUNTER, was left “five pounds and a mourning Gown to be paid her by my Executors” and the poor of Monmouth also received a bequest.

Thomas’ generosity did not, however, stretch to his other surviving brother, Edward MASON, who was left only one shilling. Was there some falling out between the brothers? Edward himself died the following year, his will dated 1765 (proved 1768 in the Diocese of Hereford) describes him as “of the Baylypit” but mentions no family members except for his wife Elizabeth. His widow’s will, proved in 1789 (Diocese of Hereford), says she is “late of the Bailypitt but now of the Town of Monmouth”; it makes no mention of the MASON family, only her great-nieces and great-nephews, children of Edward POWELL (a sadler) and a nephew, William GRIFFITHS, who was a proctor in Hereford.

What misfortune had fallen John that his brother felt it necessary to provide for him in his old age? Why was Edward left only a token bequest and how did he come to apparently take over the lease at Bailey Pit from his elder brother? Could one of them be the man with the wooden leg who haunted the Lower Bailey Pit, unhappy with events that passed there some time in the middle of the eighteenth century? There are many documents relating to this family – and their property – yet to be investigated at the National Archives, Gwent Archives and the National Library of Wales in particular. Perhaps something there will reveal more. Searching for records relating to the Bailey Pit, however, requires some persistence – and creativity – with spelling variants. Sometimes the two words are separate, other times they run together. Bailey, Bayly, Bayley, Baily, Baili, Bady, Bayli and so on are among the examples found and Pit is sometimes written as PItt, Putt, Pytte, Putte, etc. There are a few references to the property as ‘Bawdy Pitt’ and Underwood lists variants identified by Keith Kissack including ‘Cadeputte’, ‘Badypytte’ and ‘Bailipitt’.

BAILEY PIT BEFORE AND AFTER THE MASONS

There were, of course, tenants at the Bailey Pit before the MASON family. The Register Book of Professions, etc. of the English Benedictine Nuns at Brussels and Winchester, now at East Bergholt, 1598-1856, for example, has an entry for “Dame Marie Gwililyms Daughter of Mr William Gwillyms of Bailypitt in [th]e Countie of Munmouth” who was a Benedictine nun and the will of Robert ANDREWES of Tregare (PROB 11/204/184) in 1648 refers to “my brother in lawe Mr William Gwillim of the Baylypitt gent”. The nuncupative will of William MASON of Monmouth in 1593 (PROB 11/82/580) refers to his “kynnesman” Christofer GWILLIAM and the witnesses include William GWILLIAM and Richard GWILLIAM, so it is possible that further research may reveal that these earlier occupants were related to the MASON family.

The Bailey Pits were still occupied in the nineteenth century when the census began to be taken. The 1851 census suggests that all three properties were occupied at that time. Farm labourers James WILLIAMS and Francis HAWKINS both give their household address as ‘Old Bailey Pitt’, while the ADDIS family were at ‘Upper Baily Pitt’, meaning the property referred to as ‘Bailey Pitt Farm’, in the occupation of widow Mary FORD, is presumably the Lower Bailey Pit (Monmouth, ED 2a, Piece 2445, Folio 251, pages 25 & 26, schedule numbers 99 to 102).

Going back to the 1841 census for Bailey Pit, we see that Mary’s late husband was apparently William FORD, for whom a corresponding burial is recorded on 23 July 1847 in Monmouth. On 28 November 1825, the Bristol Mercury reported the marriage of “Mr. William Ford, of the Bailey-pit Farm, to Mary, daughter of the late Mr. Thomas Hughes of that borough”. The death of an earlier tenant of the farm was reported as follows in Hereford Journal on 19 November 1823: “At Shillock Farm Lantillo Cressenny, Monmouthshire, Mr. T. Morgan, aged 53, who resided some years at the Baily Pit Farm, near Monmouth”. To date, I have found no genealogical connection between these later tenants and the MASON family, whose association with Bailey Pit apparently ended with the death of Edward MASON in 1768.

Are my ancestors among the ghosts on the stairs of the Lower Bailey Pit? Do they drive a phantom coach along Watery Lane on dark and stormy nights? Did one of John MASON’s sons murder a maid or have a wooden leg? It is doubtful that these questions can be answered but one thing we can say for certain is that my ancestors once lived in a property later identified as the “Most Haunted House in Monmouth”.

I first encountered Francis BAILEY as a gentleman’s servant on the marriage certificate for his son Henry BAILEY, who married Harriet GARRETT at St. Margaret’s Church in Roath, Cardiff on 17 May 1875. Henry was born in Martock, Somerset, so it stood to reason that my search for Francis should begin there, but his life story proved to have a few unexpected twists and turns that have made him an interesting research subject, with further work yet to be done … here’s what I know about him so far.

FINDING FRANCIS

Looking at census records for Henry prior to his marriage, there is no sign of Francis: in 1861 Henry was with his grandparents James and Sarah HILL at Stapleton Cross, Martock, Somerset and in 1871 he lived with his mother Elizabeth and siblings in Stoke-sub-Hamdon, Somerset. Although Francis was absent, there was enough information here to give us a likely maiden name for Henry’s mother – Elizabeth HILL – and so the search for Francis could begin …

My quest to identify Francis started nearly ten years ago, so pre-dated Somerset parish registers being available on Ancestry, however there was a promising marriage for Francis Parker BAILEY in the GRO indexes, registered at Yeovil in the first quarter of 1853 with Elizabeth HILL on the same page. The marriage certificate revealed that Francis Parker BAILEY had indeed married Elizabeth HILL at Martock on 24 February 1853 and named their fathers as Thomas BAILEY and James HILL, both labourers. The marriage was witnessed by William MIDDLETON and Emma HILL, with both Francis and Elizabeth identified as minors and making their mark rather than signing their names.

When it came to finding a baptism record for Francis, I needed to see the parish register. There were various transcribed collections and a few online trees which suggested he was the son of Thomas BAILEY and Fanny BAILEY, but I was keen to consult the original records for myself, so I paid a visit to what was then the recently opened Somerset Heritage Centre at Norton Fitzwarren to spend a few hours scrolling through records on microfiche to see what I could discover. What I found was that Francis BAILEY, baseborn son of Fanny BAILEY, had been baptised at Martock on 13 January 1832. He would therefore have been 21 years old – so not a minor – at the time of his marriage in 1853. There was, however, no other likely baptism record and he may well have been a minor when the marriage was first arranged, perhaps somewhat hastily, as their son Henry BAILEY was born on 27 April 1853. Anyway, that was the least of my concerns in terms of inaccuracies on the marriage certificate, as there was no sign of a Francis born in Martock with a father named Thomas BAILEY. It turned out that Francis’ mother, Fanny BAILEY, had gone on to marry Thomas BAILEY, a widower with two surviving children, at Martock on 4 June 1838. They subsequently had five more children together. Francis and his family were living with Thomas and Fanny at the time of the 1861 census, on which Francis is identified as their son, so it is easy to see how one might make this assumption, particularly given that Fanny’s maiden name was the same as her married name.

Where, then, did this middle name Parker come from? It seems likely to be the surname of his biological father. In 1841, Francis BAILEY aged 9 is in the household of Fanny’s parents, Abraham and Mary BAILEY, at North Street, Martock. At the same address, but indicated to be a separate household, is John PARKER, a 56-year-old butcher. Was John PARKER – or, perhaps more likely, a son of John PARKER – the father of Francis?

FRANCIS AND ELIZABETH

Francis’ paternity may be uncertain, but what we do know is that Francis and Elizabeth BAILEY had a son, Henry, who was born on 27 April 1853 and baptised at Martock on 14 August 1853. A second child, Mary Ann BAILEY, was born on 14 March 1855, privately baptised on 11 July 1855 and brought to church on 12 August 1855. This was followed by a succession of sons named Francis: Francis Thomas BAILEY (born 28 July 1857, baptised 14 October 1857), Francis BAILEY (born c. 1860, privately baptised 30 September 1862, buried 7 October 1862) and Francis BAILEY (born 25 August 1864, baptised 25 December 1864). Another daughter, Anna BAILEY, was also born on 27 September 1862 and baptised privately three days later alongside her ailing brother Francis; she died the following year.

Francis Thomas BAILEY (born 1857) appears on the census as Thomas in 1861, Francis in 1871 and Thomas in 1881. Francis BAILEY (born c. 1860) was six months old when the 1861 census was taken and is named there as Francis. Francis BAILEY (born 1864) appears as Frank in 1871 and Francis in 1881.

On 4 June 1864 the Western Gazette reported that George GRIBB had been charged with indecently assaulting Elizabeth BAILEY on 2 May 1864, when she went to his shop for a coat her husband had agreed to purchase: “He then called her into an inside room and tried to take liberties with her, but she resisted. She went away without the coat, and, when her husband came home, she told him what had occurred. Francis Bailey said that his wife told him what had been done, and he went to Mr. Gribb and asked him why he had done so, to which he did not reply”. George GRIBB denied the charge, arguing that: “… persons were constantly coming in and out of his shop, the doors were wide open, and any person could look in through the windows. Persons living opposite could see everything that took place. He might have touched complainant in passing her, but had done nothing more”. The case was adjourned until the following month’s petty session, to allow time for witnesses to be sought; it was pointed out that GRIBB sold ready-made clothes and “no respectable person would go near the place” if the charge was substantiated.

The Sherborne Mercury reported further news of the case on 12 July 1864 and Elizabeth gave her own account of events:

“I live at Martock. On the 2nd of May I went into defendant’s shop for a coat. He asked me if I was Frank’s wife. I said, “Yes.” He then asked me to go into the next room, I went in, and he then came behind me and caught hold of me in a most indecent manner. I requested him to let me go, but he would not. I asked him several times to do so, and got away as soon as I could. He then went and took a coat down for me to look at, and at that time another woman came in, and another after her. As soon as they were gone he came round and caught hold of me again in the same way, and further endeavoured to put his hand under my clothes. I told him I would make him know better.”

The statement in defence appears to be primarily concerned with George GRIBB’s business: “… already had he suffered loss of customer at his shop, and whether the charge be right or wrong, supposing they relied upon the woman’s evidence, the defendant would probably be ruined for life ; for although the penalty would be but a small punishment, yet he would lose his character – a loss which could not be too greatly estimated”. After hearing from two witnesses – Jane Pipe and Betsy Pitman, who had entered the shop shortly after the incident took place – GRIBB was fined 40 shillings and costs or one month’s hard labour, being told he had “drawn discredit upon yourself by your own conduct, and you must take the consequences”.

So justice was done for Elizabeth, or so it seemed. These events were playing out while she was in the late stages of pregnancy with son Francis, born 25 August 1864 and she had not been afraid to make a statement or go ahead with the charge. There seems to have been no material advantage for her in doing so and, even today, many such incidents pass unreported. She also usefully tells us that she knew her husband as ‘Frank’ and that he had cause in 1864 to purchase a new coat. Up to this point, Francis Parker BAILEY’s occupation has been recorded as labourer or servant on all of the baptism records, census returns and at the time of his marriage. Was there, perhaps, a new opportunity on the horizon that necessitated the purchase of smart new coat?

ELIZABETH

As noted previously, by 1871 Elizabeth was living with her children in Stoke-sub-Hamdon. Another son Sydney BAILEY, had been born in 1869 and he would be followed by a daughter, Maud Maria BAILEY, in 1874. This suggests that Francis was still around and, indeed, Elizabeth is recorded as being married on the 1871 census. I have not, however, been able to identify baptisms for either of these children and am yet to order their birth certificates. I had hoped to do so for completeness of this story, however at the time of writing the GRO website has a notice asking users not to place non-urgent orders and I am content to wait a while longer. If these birth certificates reveal any further insight in due course, I will update this post accordingly.

On 28 June 1873, the West Somerset Free Press carried a notice of the sale of cottages by auction at Ham Hill in the parish of Stoke-sub-Hamdon, described as: “All those four cottages, with the gardens and appurtenances thereto belonging, situate at Ham-hill, in the said parish of Stoke-under-Hambdon, containing 17½ perches or thereabouts, and now in the respective occupations of John Hawkins, Francis Bailey, Susan Jeffery, and William Baker, as tenants”. As neither of the surviving sons named Francis would have been old enough to take on the tenancy, one assumes that this Francis BAILEY is Elizabeth’s husband and, indeed, her address is recorded as Ham Hill on the 1881 census, but Francis is still absent from the household.

The 1871, 1881 and 1891 census returns for Elizabeth are consistent. She lives at Stoke-sub-Hamdon – Ham Hill specifically in the latter two years – and is recorded as married, but also as head of household (rather than ‘wife’). Francis is continually absent. Elizabeth works as a glover, an occupation she has in common with a huge number of people in Yeovil and the surrounding villages at this time. The number of glovers in the area can be demonstrated by searching the 1881 census on Findmypast for people with the occupation ‘glover’ in the vicinity of Yeovil, which shows 2897 glovers within a 10 mile radius of the town and 4279 glovers within a 20 mile radius. Expand that to 50 miles and the number only goes up to 4545, which provides a useful indication of how the industry was focused around the town.

Sydney BAILEY, aged 7, was buried at Stoke sub Hamdon on 10 January 1877. Francis and Elizabeth’s daughter, Mary Ann BAILEY, is identified as an “imbecile from birth” in 1871 and 1881; this is omitted in 1891, by which time Mary Ann has given birth to two sons, Sidney and Tom. The extent of Mary Ann’s reported mental incapacity is uncertain – did ill-health in infancy lead to her private baptism, perhaps? – and there is no father identified for these two boys, both of whom have the name BAILEY.

One of Francis and Elizabeth’s two surviving sons named Francis BAILEY apparently fathered a child with Sarah Ann PRIDDLE of Bower Hinton and is described at time of the summons in 1890 as “Francis Bailey, stone sawyer, formerly of Stoke”. Quarrying at Ham Hill provided employment for a large number of men in the nineteenth century, so it is not surprising to see one of the BAILEY sons in this line of work. In 1891 he was charged at the police court with being in arrears for eight weekly payments. He said that “he could not possibly pay the amount at present, and he had no goods” so was bound over to appear within a month. I suspect this to be the younger Francis (born 1864) who was a mason’s labourer at the time of the 1881 census and appears to have avoided his responsibilities by running off to South Wales, where he married Louisa Harriet GARDNER at Bassaleg on 6 June 1892 and thereafter moved to London where he continued in a similar line of work.

By 1901, only Mary Ann and her son Sidney – who was employed as a cardboard box cutter – were still living with Elizabeth, now at New Cut, Stoke-sub-Hamdon. This time, Elizabeth is recorded as ‘wife’ rather than ‘head’ of household, but still no sign of Francis. This arrangement was still in place in 1911, when Elizabeth, the ‘head’ of household, is recorded as married for 58 years, but ‘married’ has been crossed through and replaced with ‘widow’.

The persistent absence of Francis seems curious. As already noted, Henry BAILEY described Francis as a gentleman’s servant at the time of his marriage in 1875. Henry’s brother Francis BAILEY says his father is Francis BAILEY, a coachman, at the time of his marriage in Bassaleg in 1892. Their younger sister, Maud Maria BAILEY, married Tom Arthur ROGERS in 1897 and identifies her father as Frank BAILEY, a coachman. So we’re looking for Francis (Parker) BAILEY, a coachman or gentleman’s servant, born c. 1831/1832 in Martock – and he’s easy enough to locate, but the circumstances are somewhat unexpected …

FRANCIS AND HARRIET

At 9 Tankards Close, Bristol in 1871 we find Francis BAILEY, head of household, a coachman in domestic service, born in Martock. His age – 36 – is a little younger than expected but perhaps that’s due to his ‘wife’ Harriet being only 30 years of age. Yes, it seems that Francis had set up home with a second ‘wife’ in Bristol and not only that, they have a daughter, one-year-old Frances E. BAILEY. Bearing in mind how keen he had been previously to name his sons Francis, a daughter named Frances is unsurprising and her birth registration is easily found in the GRO indexes with PAYNE as her mother’s maiden name. Frances’ baptism on 8 August 1869 at St. Michael’s, Bristol names her parents as Francis Parker (a coachman) and Harriet BAILEY. A second child, Edward John BAILEY, was baptised at St. Andrew’s, Clifton, on 18 April 1875, son of Francis (a coachman) and Harriet BAILEY.

No record can be found of a marriage between Francis Parker BAILEY and Harriet PAYNE, but that’s hardly surprising, given that he was still married to Elizabeth. Indeed, bearing in mind that Sydney was born in 1869 and Maud Maria in 1874, there is an overlap between these two families. Maud Maria, at least, believes him to be her father according to the parish register entry for her marriage and I suspect he will be name as such on their birth certificates. He also seems to have been the named tenant on the property in Stoke-sub-Hamdon, at least when it was sold in 1873 and Elizabeth still believes herself to be married until at least 1911, when there seems to be some uncertainty.

Harriet BAILEY/PAYNE died in 1906 and at the time of the 1911 census Francis Parker BAILEY is living with his daughter Frances Emily, who is now married to William George LOTT, at 25 Southernhay Avenue in Clifton. Francis is, by now, a ‘Pensioner (Coachman)’ and, if he had once been able to visit the family in Somerset from time to time, he would now be less able to do so. Perhaps he used to send money home to support them and can no longer do this in his retirement, leaving Elizabeth uncertain of his whereabouts.

There are a number of unknowns here. We don’t know how often, if at all, he contacted, visited or sent money to the family in Somerset. It seems unlikely they were aware of his second ‘wife’ and children. Elizabeth, at least at the time of the 1864 case involving George GRIBB, was not a woman who shied away from confrontation when a man did her wrong. Did Harriet and the two children in Bristol know about their older half-siblings or, indeed, Francis’ previous marriage? If not, what explanation might Francis have given for not getting married to Harriet, the woman he lived with in Bristol as his ‘wife’ for over 30 years? Was Francis really the father of Elizabeth’s two youngest children, Sydney and Maud Maria (Maud Maria certainly thought so at the time of her marriage)? The children from Francis’ marriage to Elizabeth knew their father was employed as a coachman or gentleman’s servant, so he hadn’t disappeared without a trace; they were aware of his work, if not his domestic arrangements.

Could the newspapers tell us any more about Francis’ circumstances in Bristol? On 18 March 1909 Francis Parker BAILEY was named in the Western Daily Press as one of the beneficiaries that year of money given to servants in accordance with the terms of the wills of Timothy STEVENS and Elizabeth PALMER, somewhat ironically for “long and faithful service in one family“. Neither ‘faithful’ nor ‘one family’ are appropriate epithets for Francis in family life, but it seems his loyalty was more steadfast in matters of employment.

One further reference to Francis appears in the Western Daily Press, reporting his death in 1915: BAILEY – Feb. 27, at Southernhay Avenue, Francis Parker Bailey, for many years the faithful servant of the late E. A. Harvey, Esq. Deeply regretted. The name HARVEY in Bristol brings one product immediately to mind. Harvey’s Bristol Cream, in its distinctive blue glass bottle, was a favourite tipple of my paternal grandmother, a direct descendant of Francis Parker BAILEY. It seems her ancestor was employed by the HARVEY family at the very time this variety of sherry was first produced and, perhaps, may have enjoyed a glass or two himself …

EDWARD ARTHUR HARVEY

It seems almost certain that Francis Parker BAILEY’s employer was Edward Arthur HARVEY, who would have been well-known enough in Bristol to be familiar to newspaper readers when described as “E. A. Harvey, Esq.” and is the only man of that name in the city who seems to be of the appropriate status to employ the services of a coachman at that time. Census records indicate that Francis was a domestic coachman, so it seems that he worked not for the company, but for Edward Arthur HARVEY himself. Regrettably, the HARVEY family and company archive was largely lost on 24 November 1940 when the company premises at Denmark Street were destroyed in an air raid, however there are a few records at Bristol Archive including some letters which I hope to consult eventually.

In the meantime, Godfrey HARRISON had the good sense, in 1955, to publish the book Bristol Cream, an attempt to reconstitute the family archive from remaining evidence and talking to older members of the family who were still alive at that time. The book does not mention Francis by name, but does provide some useful insight into the life of a servant to the HARVEY family. They: “constantly had family dinner parties of twelve or more – various relations coming to stay with several of their children, and married sons with their children coming to meet them. More formal parties too, and a ball at the Clifton Down Hotel”. As a domestic coachman, Francis may well have transported Edward and other members of the HARVEY family to these events and perhaps he went abroad as well; the book notes that “Edward was at Chamonix as early as 1865” and he frequently travelled in Europe. The book also says of the HARVEY brothers that: “They knew their way about and wherever they went they met old friends – growers and shippers whose names are known everywhere – who took them to their vineyards, bodegas and cellars, showed them the sights, and welcomed them as guests in their magnificent homes, and in return, on their visits to England, received the same liberal hospitality in Clifton”. To what extent, I wonder, did Francis travel with Edward Arthur HARVEY when he went abroad? Was Edward HARVEY aware of Francis’ unusual domestic arrangements? Did he perhaps indulge him with a detour to Stoke-sub-Hamdon when travelling between Bristol and the company’s branch in Portsmouth?

“The Cream”, best known of Harvey’s drinks today, was first referred to in 1882. Edward Arthur HARVEY married late in life, “in his fiftieth year” in 1889 and there is reference to his wife waiting in the carriage while he went to the cellar to taste wine. Certainly the life of Edward’s servants seems to have been a pleasant one and I’m quite sure Francis would have seen no reason to seek alternative employment:

“Edward, though he also travelled much on the Continent, spent more time in the office. The men and the clerks knew him as a driver, a stickler for detail ; if anyone asked for half an hour off he would generally go deaf. But there was an underlying kindliness which ensured his authority. If any of the staff was sick or in trouble he was helped with gifts and, more, by personal interest ; and Christmas was brightened by such delectable items as golden sovereigns and hams all round”.

The book goes on to say that: “Those who served at Denmark Street, above or below stairs, had reason to be content, and they responded with loyalty“. Edward Arthur HARVEY was, perhaps, the only person to whom Francis Parker BAILEY showed true loyalty and – noting that he was awarded for “long and faithful service in one family” in 1909 – it seems that HARVEY recognised this. I wonder, perhaps, if this award might have coincided with Francis’ retirement, but in any case Edward Arthur HARVEY died on 8 September 1910. There is no mention of any servants in his will, only his wife, so any further clue as to the relationship between Francis and his employer must wait until I am able to see the surviving family papers at Bristol Archives.

So this – for now – is the story of Francis Parker BAILEY and his families. Should further information come to light from future research, I will provide the necessary updates. I hope, perhaps, that the few surviving papers relating to the HARVEY family might mention Edward’s coachman or, perhaps even refer to a night spent in Stoke-sub-Hamdon en route between Bristol and Portsmouth, though maybe that’s a little too optimistic! I am most sympathetic to Elizabeth, but it is difficult to know what to make of a family story such as this without knowing the full circumstances. The BAILEY family were not diarists or letter writers, as far as I’m aware, so we must rely on the accounts of those who knew them to find out more and perhaps not only Bristol Archives, but also a return trip to Somerset Heritage Centre, might eventually provide further clues from consulting records relating to the parishes in which they lived. In the meantime, any thoughts or theories about the situation in which they found themselves will be very welcome!

Key sources:

Baptism (parish register). Martock, Somerset. BAILEY, Henry. 14 August 1853. Collection: Somerset, England, Church of England Baptisms, 1813-1914. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Baptism (parish register). Martock, Somerset. BAILEY, Mary Ann. 11 July 1855. Collection: Somerset, England, Church of England Baptisms, 1813-1914. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Baptism (parish register). Martock, Somerset. BAILEY, Francis Thomas. 14 October 1857. Collection: Somerset, England, Church of England Baptisms, 1813-1914. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Baptism (parish register). Martock, Somerset. BAILEY, Francis. 30 September 1862. Collection: Somerset, England, Church of England Baptisms, 1813-1914. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Baptism (parish register). Martock, Somerset. BAILEY, Anna. 30 September 1862. Collection: Somerset, England, Church of England Baptisms, 1813-1914. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Baptism (parish register). Martock, Somerset. BAILEY, Francis. 25 December 1864. Collection: Somerset, England, Church of England Baptisms, 1813-1914. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Baptism (parish register). St. Michael, Bristol, Gloucestershire. BAILEY, Frances Emily. 8 August 1869. Collection: Bristol, England, Church of England Baptisms, 1813-1918. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Baptism (parish register). St. Michael, Bristol, Gloucestershire. BAILEY, Edward John. 18 April 1875. Collection: Bristol, England, Church of England Baptisms, 1813-1918. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Birth (civil registration). Yeovil, Somerset. BAILEY, Sydney. Q2 1869. Vol. 5c. p. 483. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Birth (civil registration). Yeovil, Somerset. BAILEY, Maud Maria. Q3 1874. Vol. 5c. p. 481. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Birth (civil registration). Bristol, Gloucestershire. BAILEY, Frances Emily. Q3 1869. Vol. 6a. p. 4. https://www.gro.gov.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Birth (civil registration). Bristol, Gloucestershire. BAILEY, Edward John. Q1 1875. Vol. 6a. p. 74. https://www.gro.gov.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Marriage (parish register). Martock, Somerset. BAILEY, Thomas & BAILEY, Fanny. 4 June 1838. Collection: Somerset, England, Marriage Registers, Bonds and Allegations, 1754-1914. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Marriage (parish register). Martock, Somerset. BAILEY, Francis Parker & HILL, Elizabeth. 24 February 1853. Collection: Somerset, England, Marriage Registers, Bonds and Allegations, 1754-1914. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Marriage (civil registration). Yeovil, Somerset. BAILEY, Francis Parker & HILL, Elizabeth. Q1 1853. Vol. 5c, p. 829. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Marriage (parish register). Roath, Cardiff. BAILEY, Henry & GARRETT, Harriet. 17 May 1875. Page: 171. Collection: Glamorganshire Marriages and Banns. https://www.findmypast.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Marriage (parish register). Bassaleg, Monmouthshire. BAILEY, Francis & GARDNER, Louisa Harriet. 6 June 1892. Page: 36. Collection: Monmouthshire Marriage and Banns. https://www.findmypast.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Marriage (parish register). Stoke Sub Hamdon, Somerset. ROGERS, Arthur Tom & BAILEY, Maud Maria. 18 October 1897. Page: 193. Collection: Somerset, England, Marriage Registers, Bonds and Allegations, 1754-1914. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Burial (parish register). Stoke Sub Hamdon, Somerset. BAILEY, Sydney. 10 January 1877. No. 814. Page 96. Collection: Somerset, England, Church of England Burials, 1813-1914. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

1841 census. England. Martock, Somerset. BAILEY, Abraham [head]. RD: Yeovil. Piece: 951. Book: 1. Folio: 9. Page: 13. Collection: 1841 England Census. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

1861 census. England. Martock, Somerset. BAILEY, Thomas (head). RD: Yeovil. ED: 1. Schedule number: 153. Piece: 1642. Folio: 17. Page: 28. Collection: 1861 England Census. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

1861 census. England. Martock, Somerset. HILL, James (head). RD: Yeovil. ED: 4. Schedule number: 45. Piece: 1642. Folio: 58. Page: 10. Collection: 1861 England Census. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

1871 census. England. Stoke, Somerset. BAILY, Elizabeth (head). RD: Yeovil. ED: 8. Schedule number: 120. Piece: 2416: Folio: 33. Page: 24. Collection: 1871 England Census. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

1871 census. England. Bristol, Gloucestershire. BAILEY, Francis (head). RD: Bristol. ED: 6. Schedule number: 31. Piece: 2533. Folio: 27. Page: 5. Collection: 1871 England Census. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

1881 census. England. Stoke Under Hambdon, Somerset. BAILEY, Elizabeth (head). RD: Yeovil. ED: 8. Schedule number: 72. Piece: 2391. Folio: 125. Page: 13. Collection: 1881 England Census. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

1881 census. England. Bristol, Gloucestershire. BAILEY, Francis (head). RD: Barton Regis. ED: 2. Schedule number: 102. Piece: 2479. Folio: 49. Page: 17. Collection: 1881 England Census. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

1891 census. England. Stoke Under Hamdon, Somerset. BAILEY, Elizabeth (head). RD: Yeovil. ED: 8. Schedule number: 68. Piece: 1897. Folio: 104. Page: 11. Collection: 1891 England Census. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

1901 census. England. Stoke Under Hamdon, Somerset. BAILEY, Elizabeth (wife). RD: Yeovil. ED: 8. Schedule number: 125. Piece: 2299. Folio: 113. Page: 25. Collection: 1901 England Census. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

1901 census. England. Bristol, Gloucestershire. BAILEY, Francis (head). RD: Bristol. ED: 15. Schedule number: 136. Piece: 2366. Folio: 131. Page: 21. Collection: 1901 England Census. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

1911 census. England. Stoke sub Hamdon, Somerset. BAILEY, Elizabeth (head). RD: Yeovil. ED: 7. Schedule number: 39. Piece: 14399. Collection: 1911 England Census. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

1911 census. England. Bristol, Gloucestershire. BAILEY, Francis (father-in-law). RD: Bristol. ED: 20. Schedule number: 56. Piece: 14845. Collection: 1911 England Census. https://www.ancestry.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Western Gazette. County Petty Sessions. 4 June 1864. Page 2. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Sherborne Mercury. Serious charge against a Martock tradesman. 12 July 1864. Page 3. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

West Somerset Free Press. Sales of Cottages & Gardens. 28 June 1873. Page 1. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Western Gazette. Application. 26 September 1890. Page 3. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Western Gazette. In Arrears. 20 February 1891. Page 6. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Western Daily Press. Clifton Parish Benefactions. 18 March 1909. Page 5. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Western Daily Press. Deaths: BAILEY, Francis Parker (date of death: 27 February 1915). 2 March 1915. Page 8. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk : accessed 9 August 2020.

Harrison, Godfrey (1955). Bristol Cream. London: B. T. Batsford. https://www.archive.org/details/bristolcream0000harr : accessed 9 August 2020.

Will. HARVEY, Edward Arthur. Principal Probate Registry. Probate: 16 May 1911. https://www.gov.uk/search-will-probate : accessed 9 August 2020.

In the first part of this investigation into unusual marriage practices in Bedminster, there was an eccentric clergyman at the centre of the story, while in part two Bedminster’s growth and reputation seem to have contributed to its popularity as a marriage destination. Would civil registration resolve matters? With another eccentric clergyman in charge of the parish in the first half of the nineteenth century and an ever-growing population, there’s almost certainly good reason to suspect otherwise …

NINETEENTH CENTURY BEDMINSTER BEFORE CIVIL REGISTRATION

In part two, I focused on marriages in 1806 at the Church of St. John the Baptist in Bedminster. What I didn’t mention is that two of the marriages that year were celebrated by the new vicar of the parish, Martin Richard WHISH, who would remain as the incumbent until his death in 1852. Bedminster’s population continued to grow exponentially during this period, a challenge for any vicar, not least for one who was also responsible for St. Mary Redcliffe, St. Thomas the Martyr and Abbots Leigh parish church, as well as being a prebendary of Salisbury Cathedral.

Bedminster’s growth during the first half of the nineteenth century necessitated the building of additional churches, including St. Paul’s Church in Bedminster which was consecrated as a chapel of ease on 24 October 1831 by the Bishop of Bath and Wells. This coincided with a volatile moment in Bristol’s history, as the second Reform Bill had been defeated in the House of Lords earlier that month and the Bishop of Bath and Wells was one of those who had voted against it. The Bristol Times and Mercury records on 25 October 1831 that: “His Grace arrived about 11 o’clock in the morning, and was received by the populace who had collected around the building with marked disapprobation ; but within the walls, the strictest order and decorum were observed, every way suitable to the solemnity of the occasion”. The paper goes on to report that: “By the time the service was concluded a great many persons had collected outside and on Bedminster-bridge, and as the Bishop left the Church he was assailed with groans, yells and hisses ; but the mettle of his horses soon carried him out of hearing. We are sorry to add that a few stones were thrown, one of which fell into the carriage, but without doing any injury”. A few days later, Sir Charles Wetherell’s arrival in Bristol was the final catalyst for several days of rioting. Bristol Radical History Group have a number of publications and articles on this aspect of the city’s history which are worth consulting for those with an interest in this area.

During the early period of Martin Richard WHISH’s incumbency, some of my own ancestors from north Somerset were married at St. John the Baptist and St. Mary Redcliffe. On 9 October 1809 Lucy HILLBERT and George COOK were married at St. John’s, claiming to be ‘of this parish’; the officiating minister was the curate Williams EDWARDS, who featured in part two. Lucy was born in Kewstoke and George in Litton; their daughter, Jane, was baptised at Litton on 20 August 1810, where they were living at the time of the censuses being taken in 1841, 1851 and 1861, so if they were ‘of this parish’ in Bedminster, it was only for a short period of time.

Lucy and George’s daughter, Jane COOK, married Isaac HILLMAN at St. Mary Redcliffe on 5 September 1835, a marriage at which Martin Richard WHISH officiated; again, both said to be ‘of this parish’, but Isaac was from Corston and Jane from Litton. They are living at Clutton at the time of the 1841 census. Isaac and Jane’s ‘daughter’ Jane HILLMAN (more about her complicated life story here) married, at different times, two sons of Joseph PRICE and Sarah BLANNING. Joseph came from Publow, while Sarah was born at Stanton Wick. They married at St. Mary Redcliffe on 9 February 1834, another marriage at which Martin Richard WHISH officiated and the couple were said to be ‘of this parish’. Just over three months later, on 11 May 1834, the couple’s first child, Jonas PRICE, was baptised at Publow, where they lived and raised a family thereafter.

As an aside, there is an interesting letter scanned with the parish register for Bedminster on Ancestry, which I include here since it is related to a marital matter, sent from Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania) dated 16 September 1833 in which Henry TOZER – who had married Hannah SIMS at the Church of St. John the Baptist, Bedminster on 17 February 1818 – writes the following:

“I have taken the liberty of writing to you respecting my Marriage Certificate although at present upwards of seventeen thousand miles distance from you. I beg to say that in consequence of a crime committed in England I was transported to this Colony for the term of seven years and which sentence I am happy to say has now expired and I am at the present moment enjoying the Blessings of Liberty once again (thanks be to the Almighty for the same) and am determined by pursuing a steady and preserving conduct never again to forfeit that Liberty which I now so much value. I beg further to state that since my conviction in England my Wife took it so much to heart that she committed a crime for the purpose of being transported in the hopes of being allowed to reside with me but on her arrival in this Colony the Authorities deemed it necessary that one or other of us should produce our Marriage Certificate which neither of us is capable of doing without your Reverence’s kind assistance. I beg further to state that We Henry Tozer and Hannah Sims were married in the Parish Church of Bedminster Somerset in the year 1815 and therefore beg leave most respectfully to solicit the favor at your Reverence’s hand to forward a copy of our Marriage Certificate to me in this Colony as early as possible for we are very anxious to be once again together and never again to part ’till Death“

There were of course no marriage certificates as such at this time and whether or not the vicar responded is not recorded, but this is a great example of the value of looking at the entire parish register book – more of which later – and any other ephemera that may happen to have been scanned alongside it.

NO CLERGYMAN = NO MARRIAGES

Civil registration of marriages in England and Wales began on 1 July 1837. This removed the Anglican monopoly on marriages and, in theory, gave people the option of getting married at non-conformist places of worship and in registry offices. One might suppose that this would provide suitable alternatives for those who wished to covertly marry away from their home parish, but – whether through habit, faith or for some other reason – this was not, at least in the early years, necessarily the case. Getting married in the Church of England, however, was dependent on the clergyman turning up at the church …

It is evident from contemporary newspaper reports that the vicar of Bedminster, Martin Richard WHISH, was finding it increasingly challenging to tend to his congregations at the multiple churches for which he was responsible. It was reported that on Sunday 25 October 1840 there was no morning service at Bedminster as no clergyman turned up to lead worship. The Bristol Mercury commented that: “The candidates for matrimony will, in all probability, have to continue in a state of celibacy for another week in consequence of this most shameful admission, as, we understand, there is a doubt to the legality of publishing the bans in the course of the afternoon service”. Whether the writer of this piece really believed that unmarried couples remained in a state of celibacy until their wedding day is debatable, but it would at least have been something of an inconvenience for anyone who had travelled to Bedminster from north Somerset and maybe taken short-term lodgings in the parish in order to facilitate their nuptials.

The same issue arose again on the last Sunday in October 1841, at which time the Bristol Mercury suggested that WHISH ought to employ a curate to provide adequate cover and noted that six persons who were candidates for marriage had returned home unwed, adding that: “We have heard reports of the most painful circumstances having arisen in one case out of the non-performance of the marriage ceremony, but we feel bound to ascertain, beyond the shadow of a doubt, their correctness, before we give them publicity”. It is not clear what this rather cryptic comment refers to, but the Bishop of Bath and Wells did acknowledge the difficulties of managing a parish the size of Bedminster and in December 1841 it was reported in the Bristol Mercury that: “Bedminster (the population of which has been increased about 16,000 during the incumbency of the Rev. Martin R. Whish) is to be divided into three districts, each containing from 5000 to 8000 souls”. On the same page, it is reported that WHISH’s son is to be licensed as a curate of “Bedminster old church”, an act of nepotism which would nonetheless ease the burden of his father’s work.

THE CONSISTORIAL COURT

St. Mary Redcliffe was still officially a ‘daughter’ church of Bedminster at this time, which seems remarkable given its grandeur and position in the centre of Bristol. The impressive nature of this church might help to explain its popularity as a wedding venue, particularly when the clergy were overworked and somewhat apt to overlook administrative details. Bristol Temple Meads railway station opened in 1840 and the Bristol and Exeter Railway – which served a number of north Somerset villages – opened in 1844. Those familiar with Bristol will know how short a walk it is from Bristol Temple Meads to St. Mary Redcliffe so perhaps this new mode of transport made this particular church more accessible to Somerset villagers wishing to marry there.

In 1843, Martin Richard WHISH and Dr. IRVINE, curate at St. Mary Redcliffe, appeared at the consistory court in Bristol on charges relating to the marriage of non-residents who were related within the prohibited degrees. Williams REDGERS and Charlotte DURBIN, both of Nailsea, gave their address as “Redcliff Street” at the time of their marriage, however Charlotte was the sister of William’s first wife, Jane DURBIN, and as such, the marriage was prohibited at this time. The Bristol Mercury remarked that many clergymen were opposed to this law and there is plenty of evidence of marriages of this nature taking place unimpeded at parishes around the country throughout the nineteenth century.

It seems the curate of Nailsea, Reverend JOHNSON, was not so sympathetic, as he told the court he had made enquiries at three churches in Bristol due to his suspicions that William REDGERS and Charlotte DURBIN planned to marry and had written to Dr. IRVINE about the matter. JOHNSON said he had remonstrated with the couple before the wedding and told them they could not be married, but this was clearly to no avail. In the Bristol Times and Mirror it is recorded that the Archdeacon: “had letters from clergymen complaining that in Redcliff in particular marriages were celebrated out of their proper parish” and wished to draw attention to this fact. The Clerk told the Archdeacon he considered 15 days to be sufficient residence in the parish and mentions that he had read in the papers about “a clandestine marriage brought from the country and celebrated in Bristol church”.

IRVING claimed his reluctance to act on second-hand information was because he had once received a letter purporting to be from a groom’s father objecting to a marriage which had afterwards turned out to have been written by a disappointed suitor of the bride. On the inside cover of the parish register of marriages for the Church of St. John the Baptist in Bedminster there is the handwritten text of a letter sent to the editor of the Bristol Mercury in 1843 regarding “the late trial for illicit marriage – at St. Mary Redcliffe” which states Dr. Irvine was “falsely accused” and goes on to defend the position, arguing that the clergy do not wish to face lawsuits for refusing to marry a couple and that they may therefore perform marriages without “sufficient knowledge” of any prohibited degrees of affinity between the betrothed couple.

Correspondence in the Bristol Mercury around this time refers to reports of clandestine marriages and difficulties in verifying residence in populous parishes, making the suggestion that perhaps at least investigating a few of the more suspicious cases might put off some of the others. There is also a claim made of a marriage between an aunt and nephew in recent years, which prompts a response from WHISH: “I beg to state that my Curate tells me he is not conscious of ever having married such person who stand in the relation of AUNT and NEPHEW, at any time, or ever heard that such were married in the church of St. Mary Redcliffe“. He goes on to say that another alleged clandestine marriage had been struck out of the register book, with the parties marrying instead at a neighbouring church. The aunt-nephew marriage may not be as shocking as this first sounds if it refers to an aunt by marriage, perhaps widowed, and the age difference may not be great in such circumstances; perhaps the youngest son of a large family had been married to the aunt and the nephew’s father was the oldest son of that family, for example. I have come across plenty of examples of large nineteenth century families where the younger children are already aunts/uncles at the moment they are born; a particular case in my own family comes to mind where an aunt’s widower married a niece who was around the same age as her deceased aunt, the aunt being the youngest of a dozen children and the niece being the daughter of one of the eldest.

It was not always the actions of the clergy that were brought into question at the consistory court. Another interesting marriage case was reported in the Globe newspaper in 1845, concerning divorce proceedings between William DAVIS and his wife Jane (nee DURBIN). In 1833 she was said to have committed adultery with Abraham FULLER, then lived with Edward HOLDER as his mistress using the name of Mrs. WHITFORD and, more recently, lived with James DALLY as his wife. The marriage of Williams DAVIS and Jane DURBIN had taken place on 15 October 1832 at Bedminster with the bride’s name given as Jane DOBBINS in the parish register. Evidence reportedly proved the allegations to be true and the couple were divorced on grounds of adultery.

MARTIN RICHARD WHISH

The parish registers for the Church of St. John the Baptist in Bedminster and St. Mary Redcliffe – available via Ancestry – have a great deal more to offer than simply entries of baptisms, marriages and burials. The front and back pages are full of notes and letters written by the vicar and, in the case of St. Mary Redcliffe for a time, a handwritten A-Z index of persons named therein. One note dated 1845, in the parish register of marriages at Bedminster, seems particularly worth considering: “Having repeatedly had letters of complaint from certain Clergyman & others, not always couched in terms of courtesy, & for the most part without any legal grounds of objection which they can prove […] Is it not unreasonable to expect me, or any Curate to go round the hovels of every street, to enquire after the parties of another Parish of whom I know not one?”

Describing the homes of parishioners as ‘hovels’, one imagines, would not be well-received by the vicar’s congregation, but it is clear from this comment that the local clergy had neither the time nor inclination to check up on the residence claims of every person who came to marry at their churches. The cases reported in local newspapers also appeared other newspapers around the country, perhaps unwittingly providing further publicity for the churches for which WHISH was responsible as suitable venues for covert marriages.

Martin Richard WHISH was an interesting character. Notes in the parish register and newspaper reports demonstrate his “zeal for Protestantism” (as noted in the Bristol TImes and Mirror in 1850). He railed against Irvingism (the Catholic Apostolic Church) as “a covert and very subtle, but modern form of Arianism” in the Bristol Mirror in 1835 and addressed the Bristol Missionary Society in 1939, expressing a desire to challenge the Catholic Church’s “ascendancy on the continent of Europe … particularly in France”, as reported in the Bristol Mercury. In the parish register notes he expresses opposition to the Catholic Emancipation Bill of 1829 and writes enthusiastically in defence of Protestantism.

It is the Church of England, however, for which Martin Richard WHISH causes the most disruption towards the end of his incumbency, as following the death of the Bishop of Bath and Wells (George Henry LAW) in 1845, Bedminster was instead made subject to the authority of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. WHISH objected to this quite vocally and posted a protest on the doors of the church in Bedminster, for which proceedings were commenced under the Church Discipline Act. He continued to object to this arrangement until his death in 1852.

In 1848 the church at Abbots Leigh was destroyed by fire, but despite arrangements being hastily made for the schoolroom to be used for services, the Bristol Times and Mirror reported that “nothing has been seen or heard of Mr. Whish, who seems from this to think that the burning of the old church has relieved him from his duty until a new one is built“.

In 1850 the perpetual curate of St. Peter’s, Bishopsworth – Rev. Henry BRANCKER – complained that WHISH had interrupted a service and asked BRANCKER to leave the pulpit, believing that he still had authority at the church, which had formerly been the case; the Bristol Mirror reported that when WHISH got into the pulpit, “the whole of the congregation, with the exception of two old deaf women and the charity children, quitted the church“.

CHANGE COMES TO BEDMINSTER?

Martin Richard WHISH died on 7 April 1852 from bronchitis at Redcliff Vicarage. The Bristol Times and Mirror perhaps provides the most balanced assessment of his character: “The late incumbent of Redcliff had some peculiarities, amongst which was most remarkable his style of composition and the resolution with which he held out for what he believed to be his ecclesiastical rights ; he was, however, withal a most kind-hearted, sincere, and charitable man, and always preserved under every circumstance the temper and manners or a gentleman”.

The church authorities immediately took the opportunity, following WHISH’s death, to review matters in Bedminster, with chapels of ease – most notably St. Mary Redcliffe – becoming parish churches in their own right. Having witnessed WHISH’s reaction to the previous change in diocesan authority, one could imagine perhaps they daren’t have suggested such a thing while he was still alive! Other churches were built in the area as Bedminster continued to grow, including St. Raphael’s in 1858 and St. Luke’s in 1861. The Church of St. John the Baptist at Bedminster had stood since 1663 – its predecessor having been burned down during the Civil War – but in 1854 was demolished to be replaced by a new church building the following year. The new Church of St. John the Baptist in Bedminster was destroyed after less than a century by bombing during the Second World War.

Did any of this change make much difference to the marriage practices that were going on in Bristol and Bedminster? Perhaps to some extent, but there is evidence that attention to detail was still lacking in some of these churches later on in the nineteenth century and Somerset villagers continued to go to churches in and around Bristol to get married throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Similar patterns can no doubt be found in other cities where folk came from the country to get married. Was it a matter of status or tradition? An intention to move to the city after marriage? A village church being repaired or awaiting appointment of a new vicar? Or something they wanted to keep secret from the local vicar or community? Whatever the reasons, the villagers of north Somerset are often found getting married at churches in Bristol before returning to their home parishes and it will not always be clear why they chose to do this. Do not, however, assume that the address your villager ancestor provides on their marriage certificate was their permanent residence. I have seen a number of examples of pubs and lodging houses being given as the address or perhaps the home of a relative who happens to live in that parish.

Jane, the ‘daughter’ of Isaac HILLMAN and Jane COOK mentioned earlier in this post, married her deceased husband’s brother at St. Luke’s, Bedminster in 1888 and used the address of his sister to assert the residency qualification to marry in the parish. Jane had been living in Uphill, Somerset up to this point and her new husband had been living in America for some years. Once again the residency requirement is in question here, as well as the matter of marrying a deceased husband’s brother, but it hardly seems like the crime of the century. If local vicars in the villages were sticklers for the rules and those in the city were more liberal minded, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that this practice continued to persist. In many ways, marrying a deceased spouse’s sibling was a very practical solution for all concerned.

In 1874 my great-great-great uncle Edward John PERRETT, who was a confectioner in Bedminster, married his second wife Elizabeth Jane SMITHERAM at St. John’s. Although he was a widower, the parish register states he was a bachelor; this doesn’t really matter too much, but perhaps hints at an ongoing lack of attention to detail. By contrast, when his son Albert John PERRETT married Alice Ophelia NOBLE at St. Paul’s, Bedminster in 1909, the bride’s middle name was incorrectly spelled as ‘Aphelia’; this has been amended by a correctional note in the margin of the register, initialled by the vicar, Thomas Taylor ROBINSON. Perhaps a sign that things were starting to change!

There is a huge amount of data available in parish registers for Bedminster and Bristol which might be evaluated and cross-referenced with other records to determine the prevalence of marriages that were recorded incorrectly, whether from outside the parish, within prohibited degrees or some other inaccuracy. An in-depth study would perhaps allow trends to be tracked through time and certain other parishes highlighted at different times.

There was of course another way to get round the issue of a marriage not being permissible and that was to live together as though man and wife without getting married at all … so in my next blog post – coming soon – I’ll be introducing my ancestor Francis and explaining why that’s exactly what he did!

Bristol and Somerset parish registers are available at Ancestry. It’s worth being aware that Bedminster is indexed under the ‘Bristol’ drop-down in the parish register collection when using the browse function, but Ancestry defaults to ‘Bedminster, Somerset, England’ when searching by place, as the parish was historically part of Somerset. I would recommend using the Card Catalogue to focus on the Bristol parish register collections in order to locate Bedminster parish register entries of interest.

All newspapers referred to in this post were found using the British Newspaper Archive, also available via Findmypast.