Beware of those bearing good news

Repeatedly the Quarter Sessions make clear some things are timeless.

In 1864, Mark Clark, a widow of Luton received a visit from George Howard.  George Howard bore exciting news for her; he said he was there on very important business.  Firstly he ran through some routine questions with Mrs Clark, asking her if her husband was dead and if he had died in the asylum.  Mrs Clark confirmed he had, at which point Mr Howard revealed a legacy was due to her.  Howard initially stated a sum of £48 a year was due to her and £850 for each of her husbands children.  Wisely, Mrs Clark sought the advice of her neighbour, and Howard explained there were 6 cottages, 160 acres of land, a mansion and furniture at Wellingborough and further property at Wootton.  He went into more detail explaining the property was due to be auctioned at Bedford and that his boss, the solicitor Mr Middleton, anticipated her share to be £48,000.   He told her that there was certain paperwork necessary for the claim such as her children’s birth certificates, her marriage certificate and her husband's death certificate.  All she need to do was [here we go....] give him the small sum of 11s 2d 1/2 , which would in the longer term save her £6 10s 0d.  She gave him the money in the presence of her neighbour and Howard left to catch his train back to Bedford.  Mary had fallen for a scam.

Mary and her husband John, had both been born in Wootton and moved to Luton with their family.  John was a gardener whilst Mary was a laundress.  The 1861 census shows Mary, in Albert Street, Luton and her husband listed as being in the Alms Asylum.

The con man was captured by local police whilst drinking in the Engine public house.  He confessed to his crime and was sentenced to 2 months imprisonment.

QSR1864/3/5/6

Bonfire Night

Last November our document of the month was a deposition from a case in which a gang of boys in Houghton Regis stole straw to put on a bonfire on November 5th. In a bit of timely cataloguing I just came across a similar case in which Charles Kitchener of Luton was accused of stealing faggots (bundles of wood) from Peter Wilson in Luton. Joseph Matthews was to guard his master's faggot stack at 11pm on November 5th. A few minutes later Kitchener and two friends arrived. The friends helped Kitchener to climb the stack, from which he threw down faggots which the other two gathered. When he came down Kitchener picked up a faggot himself, only to be apprehended by Matthews and taken to the Old English Gentleman public house where he was handed over to the police. Matthews stated that nearly one hundred faggots had been taken from the stack that night. Presumably once the excitement of Bonfire Night had settled Wilson was feeling in merciful mood as the case was not prosecuted and Kitchener was discharged.

Did Luton have enough Police Constables?

...............well not according to the petition raised by inhabitants of the town in 1855. A 71 strong petition, featuring the names of business owners, solicitors and the clergy of the town petitioned the Quarter Sessions for an increase in the number of Police Constable in Luton.   At the time the population of the town and parish of Luton had grown to 16,420 but was policed by just 2 Police Constables.

The petitions throws up some other interesting statistics and comments:

- on 31 December 1854 the parish and town population had increased to 16,420, with the town population of 14,000.

- the nature of the population requires more surveillance than an agricultural population.

- the length of the parish of Luton was almost 8 miles with the average breath of 3 to 4 miles and was almost 17,000 acres.

- the parish of Luton paid £309 for the Police Rate in 1854 and had 2 constable whilst other parishes in the Luton division paid £250 and had the advantage of 4 constables.

- the Police Rate suggests they ought have 5 constables, considering the inclusion of Caddington and the probable increase in low and disreputable characters during the construction of the railway.

- the population of the county in 1841 was 107,936 for which 43 constables were considered sufficient; the rate being 1 constable per 2,500 inhabitants. 

- the population of Luton now being 16,420 same rate would require 6 constables.

- inhabited houses in the Town of Luton in 1841 were only 1,139 and in December 1854 this was more than double at 2,512.

The Quarter Session minute book for this period suggests the request was successful and the Chief Constable was given the authority to appoint an additional 6 constables. The next year saw major changes in the how the policing of Bedfordshire was organised, with the introduction of revised Police Districts.  In fact it's interesting to note that it wasn't until this year that it became compulsory for a county to have its own Police Force.  Regardless of the changes, the issue raises its head again in later years, with the town still feeling it had insufficient Police Constables.  Confirming it as a timeless issue.  The image below shows, the impact of the railways is being felt.

QSR1855/4/2/3

QSM 38
QEV3

The wrong side of the law

PC George Cannon Smith found himself on the wrong side of the law in the Midsummer quarter of 1888.  He was accused of stealing wood from a construction site close to his home in Pondswick Road, Luton.  A neighbour, Mrs Fanny Hyde, spotted him, in full police uniform, taking wood from the new houses around daybreak one Sunday morning.   The depositions suggest Mrs Hyde may have already been familiar with PC Smith.  Her and her husband, Martin George had formerly run the Jolly Topper public house in Stopsley, Luton.  Whilst under cross examination, it was put to Fanny that she was familiar with PC Smith from her days at the public house.  In fact it was suggested he had on occasion spoken to her about her management.  Mrs Hyde disputed this fact!

The Jolly Toppers 2010

There was additional evidence against the officer.  The foreman of the building site was able to identify a piece of wood found in the constable’s house.  The foreman, Elias Hill, believed the wood bore the grease marks from the candle he had used and the nail marks from where it had been fixed to the window.

Meanwhile, PC Smith, who lived with his brother Albert Cannon Smith, said that the wood had been used by his brother.  Albert elaborated describing how it was a well travelled piece of wood.  It had been originally at the house when they moved in, and had then been nailed above a sitting hen.  From there the piece of wood went off to the  stables Albert rented, where he used it to secure his pigs, until it finally made its way back to the Smith household.

George Smith was found not guilty in this case, but it interested us to see if George remained in the force.  Less than 2 years later, the 1891 census shows George and his family having moved to Wiltshire, and he is resident at the Police Station in Hungerford.  However, 10 years later his family has rapidly expanded and they have been on the move again.  This time he is a farm bailiff in Walton on Thames.  George had come from a farming background, as his father had been a farmer of 187 acres in Redbourne, Herts whilst George was growing up. By 1911, at 52 years old and with 13 children having been born to him and his wife, he can be found as a council roadman in Hersham, Surrey.    What happened in these intervening years is a mystery, but George Cannon Smith appears to have spent his later years in a very different occupation to that which he held in 1888.

QSR1888/3/5/6

Who’s telling the truth?

We often come across cases where it becomes the word of one person against another.  This week we had a case of stolen flour, with 2 men accused of a crime, both giving convincing statement of their innocence and in turn, blaming the other.

A Welwyn miller by the name of James Chalkley had employed Amos Fowler for 4 or 5 years.  Fowler’s role was to deliver flour out from the railway station at Luton to the customers with written orders.  On 22 July 1887 a sack of flour went missing from the station.  A witness by the name of George Battens, son of a cow keeper, explained how he had been on the railway bridge when he had been approached by the co-accused William Lawson.  Lawson asked him to use his mule and cart to carry a sack in return for sixpence. Battens fetched his mule and cart to the bottom of the railway steps at GNR.  Lawson was waiting and after 5 or 10 minutes Fowler came up and they went into the yard.  Battens followed.  They stopped him went on 20 yards to a truck and fetched a large sack which was white and floury looking.  Fowler carried it and put the sack in Battens cart with Lawson undoing the tailgate.  Battens took the sack to a house in High Street, High Town and Lawson met him at the door and took the sack into the house. 

Both men were arrested and Fowler was charged with the theft of the sack of flour and Lawson with receiving stolen goods.  However their own statements varied greatly.  

Statement of William Lawson:  On Monday he had been going up Chapel Street by the Queens Hotel.  He saw a wagon and horses standing against a baker shop.  The Wagoner came from behind the wagon and asked him if he had his old pony and cart.  Lawson said he had sold it and the Wagoner said he wanted to send some flour to High Town and had not wanted to take his horse and wagon up there.  Lawson said he could get a pony and cart and agreed to meet the Wagoner at the station.  On his way he met George Battens and asked him to go to the GNR station with him in return for sixpence.  At the station he went into the yard with the Wagoner who went to the truck and got a sack of flour out of it and put it in Battens cart.  Battens drove off and he met Battens again at his house. He took the flour into his house as he had forgotten where he was taking it so went to the Bull to meet the Wagoner to tell him he’d forgotten.  He told the Wagoner he would like the flour and gave him 10 shillings, with the Wagoner agreeing and saying he’d be back in a day or two and would collect the rest of the money.  He believed the Wagoner had the right to sell the flour.

Statement of Amos Fowler:  he had met Lawson as he came down Bute Street.  Lawson asked him for a sack of flour for Mr Giltrow and he agreed.  They went to the station and Lawson said he had a cart.  He put the flour sack in the cart.  Mr Giltrow often fetched or sent for a sack or two.  Mr Chalkley told him to always send a sack if he asked.  He did not receive any money or give a receipt.  He did not know Lawson’s name.

So here’s our challenge……who do you think was found guilty?  We’ll reveal the answer on Friday.

QSR1887/4/5/3,4b

Internal Furnishing of a Victorian Home

The Bedfordshire and Luton Archive and Record Service have just published their document of the month for May.  Click here to visit

The article looks at the contents of various Victorian homes in Bedfordshire as listed in various documents held by the archives. This includes the case of George & Edwin Palmer which came to court in Michaelmas QSR1886.  What on the surface seemed to be a typical bankruptcy case actually reveals some underhand dealing and reveals a fabulous long list of the content of Palmer's home in Liverpool Street, Luton.

QSR1886/4/5/13-14