On either side in the Easter Rising 1916

” Gerald Neilan was the first British officer to die in the Rising; his brother was a rebel.” – Irish Times. The shot that killed him was fired from the Mendicity Institute on the banks of the River Liffey.

Mendicity Institute, Dublin

I came across three extraordinary articles recently. Two from the Irish Times, and one from the Irish Mirror, they were all written about two years ago, on the centenary of the Easter Rising, and I’m not going to quote them entirely. You can read them here – Irish Mirror – 26 Mar 2016Irish Times – Mon, Mar 28, 2016, – Irish Times – Sun, Apr 24, 2016,

I’ll let the Irish Times tell the next part of the story.

 

” In Glasnevin Cemetery there is a faded headstone over the Neilan family plot. Husband and wife John and Eva Neilan are buried there. They came originally from outside Roscommon town. After her husband died, Eva Neilan moved to Dublin. She died in 1930, outliving the first of her children listed on the headstone Lieutenant Gerald Neilan R.D.F (Royal Dublin Fusiliers).”

” His date of death is instructive as to when and why he died — “killed in Dublin, Easter Monday 1916, aged 34”. Neilan was the first British officer to die in the Easter Rising. He was an Irishman so “strongly nationalistic in his sympathies as to be almost a Sinn Féiner”, according to the author Stephen Gwynn. He was one of four Neilan brothers who served in the army during the first World War, three of them as doctors in the Royal Army Medical Corps (RAMC)……. One Neilan brother though took a different path. Arthur Neilan was sworn into the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) in 1913 and joined the Irish Volunteers shortly afterwards. He was only 18. On Easter Monday, Arthur Neilan was told by Patrick Pearse to proceed to the Four Courts garrison which needed reinforcements and found himself fighting in the same garrison that had killed his brother earlier that day. ” – Irish Times

All the stories reflect quite strongly on the tragic irony of Arthur Neilan serving along side the men who killed his brother, and the story of Irishmen fighting Irishmen on the streets of Dublin. What they don’t do is look in greater depth at what and who these men were, and I suspect the real story is a great deal more complicated than it looks at first sight.

The second Irish Times article, and the Irish Mirror article both quote a niece of both men, and the overall tone of the articles creates a very different picture from what is actually the case. As is often the way, the family folklore takes on a life of its own, and doesn’t appear to quite tell the real story. The first real clues to look at are the sentence ” He (Gerald)  was an Irishman so “strongly nationalistic in his sympathies as to be almost a Sinn Féiner”, according to the author Stephen Gwynn.”  and “ It is so, so sad because they should have been a happy co-operative family. They were loyal to the British. They looked on Arthur as a rebel.”. – S.M. –  Gerald and Arthur Neilan’s niece

Stephen Gwynn (1864-1950)

The two seem to contradict each other quite strongly. So let’s look at them in a little more depth. The quote from Stephen Gwynn seems to have been added to the Irish Times article from a book ” According to their Lights by Neil Richardson “ The Collins Press, 2015. A fuller quote is below.

” Stephen Lucius Gwynn – Irish Party M.P. , and also a Connaught Rangers officer later wrote in John Redmond’s Last Years (1919) about the ambush that killed Gerald Neilan on Ellis Quay. He recalled that Neilan “was so strongly Nationalist in his sympathies as to be almost a Sinn Féiner”, and that among the other Royal Dublin Fusiliers casualties “Others had been active leaders in the Howth gun-running. It was not merely a case of Irishmen firing on their fellow countrymen; it was one section of the original Volunteers firing on another. “

So the question now is how ” British ” were the Neilan brothers. The family folklore continued in an interview in the Irish Mirror  “The family had always lived in Roscommon. My grandfather was a Justice of the Peace and a loyal British subject. Of course a lot of the people were then – they were in Great Britain. I never met my grandmother because she died in 1930. My grandfather John Alexander Neilan had sadly died in 1903, so I didn’t meet him either. But seven of their children survived to be grown-ups, and I knew all but two quite well………But because they had been brought up to be extremely British, and my grandfather was a Justice of the Peace, I think they were terribly hurt when Arthur went and fought for the rebels.”

This part of the story of the two brothers is starting to cause some problems. It’s told from a very British perspective, and almost certainly reflects the side of the family that had either moved to co. Durham before the First War, or settled there after the War. I think the bigger question is how Irish were the Neilan brothers, and the answer is very.  Maria O’Conor their maternal grandmother was a fourth cousin of Owen O’Conor (1763 – 1831) who became the O’Conor Don in 1820. He was Patrick Grehan I’s brother-in-law, so stretching things almost to breaking point there is a family link. So the Neilan boys are fourth cousins twice removed from great-uncle Owen.

Will of Patrick Grehan I,

Source: National Archives Kew England

Written: January 14, 1830

Recorded: June 17, 2017

In the Name of God Amen. I Patrick Grehan formerly of Saint James Street Dublin Brewer being of sound mind do publish & declare this to be my last Will & Testament revoking all former ones I direct that my body may be interred in the most private manner in St James St Church Yard should I happen to die in Dublin or within three miles from it but not otherwise I direct all my just Debts to be paid if not more than four years standing I leave to my dear Daughter Jane Grehan now a member of the Religious Community residing at New Hall Essex the Dividends on one thousand five hundred pounds three P Ct reduced Stock or Annuities part of a sum now standing in my name for & during the term of her natural life I leave to my dearest sister Mary Roche fifty pounds as a token of my affection and regard I leave to my nephew Andrew Grehan and my niece Mrs Butler fifty pounds each for mourning I leave to Thomas Lynam formerly my Clerk fifty pounds I direct also my Executors to pay him two hundred pounds to be distributed by him amongst the most necessitous of my father’s Relations at his discretion taking into Consideration those who now receive an allowance at my hands if alive at the time of my Death I direct the sum of One hundred Pounds to be given for Masses for the Repose of my soul I leave Fifty Pounds to the Catholic Schools of St James Parish and fifty pounds to be distributed amongst the poor of the said parish as the Revd Doctor Lube or his successors think fit I leave to the Catholic Schools of St Catherines Parish thirty pounds to the Catholic Schools of the parish of St Andrews Townshend Thirty Pounds to the Catholic Schools of St Mary & Thomas Thirty I leave to my grandson Patrick Grehan one thousand pounds As to all the Residue & Remainder of my property I leave it share and share alike to be equally divided between my two sons Edwd Grehan or Graham and Patrick Grehan lastly I do appoint my two sons to be Executors to this my last Will and Testament written with my own hand this fourteenth day of January one thousand eight hundred and thirty _ Patrick Grehan Done at my sister’s Mrs Roche’s house No 50 Harcourt Street Dublin (Appearance by John Donnelly of No 28 Denmark Street Dublin as to manner and character of the handwriting of the deceased on 29 March 1832)

Proved at London 14 June 1832 PCC Prob11/1801

State of Crime in Liverpool, October 1837

The Borough Gaol, Great Howard Street, Liverpool

From The Statistical journal and record of useful knowledge, Vol. 1 October 1837

The following paper was read by Mr Joshua Walmsley in the statistical section of the British Association at Liverpool on Friday the 15th of September.

“ Those who have interested themselves in the general proceedings of this Association will remember, that, at its last meeting, held in Bristol a paper on Statistical Desiderata was read by a distinguished member of this section, wherein several censures were passed upon ‘ A report upon the state of crime in Liverpool ‘ then recently printed by order of the Council of the borough That gentleman having subsequently visited Liverpool, I rejoiced in the opportunity it afforded me of showing him the data on which the conclusions were founded. He admitted that he misapprehended the report, for instead of allowing, as he thought, an average income of 470 l. a year [£23, or a modern-day equivalent of £ 26,240]  to each criminal, it did not allow quite 80l.[£4, or a modern-day equivalent of £ 4,467]; and when the profligacy and necessary expenditure of a confirmed thief or a dissolute woman’s life are considered,  80 l. a year is not an excessive temptation to a life of crime and sin. In fact it implies most forcibly that, in a pecuniary sense, the mass of them lead (which is the truth) a life of misery.

The report gave, as the result of rigid inquiry, a criminal population to this town of 4,200 females and 4,520 males, 2,270 of the latter being professed thieves, and the remainder occasional thieves, living by a combination of labour and plunder; and the whole was set down at upwards of 700,000 l. [£35,000, or a modern-day equivalent of £ 39,000,000.] This does at first sight appear incredible; but an investigation, pursued with much labour, and not unattended with obloquy, convinced me the statement contained no exaggeration.

A more recent inquiry, carried on by better means, afforded by a more experienced police force, not only confirms these details, but leaves an impression that the number of criminals was underrated. In an inquiry of this kind an approximation to accuracy is all that can be expected, and all I purpose to do is to furnish the society with the most accurate data which is accessible.

I hold in my hand two or three returns, about the correctness of which there can be no doubt. They contain the number of persons brought before the magistrates, and the number committed; they also give the age of the juvenile felons. In the year 1835, there were taken into custody 13,506 persons, of whom 2,138 were committed. In 1836, there were taken into custody 16,890, of whom 3,343 were committed. Up to the 13th of the present month, the number taken into custody in eight months was 12,709, of whom 2,849 were committed. From July, 1835, to July, 1836, the number of juvenile thieves, under 18 years of age, apprehended was 924, of whom 378 were committed. From July, 1836, up to the present day the number of juvenile thieves taken into custody was 2,339, of whom 1,096 were committed. There were in custody, during the same period, upwards of 1,500 well known adult thieves.

In our report juvenile thieves were set down at 1,270, it now seems that the number was very greatly underrated, for the most expert officer does not pretend to say that one half were taken into custody.

In the returns made by the old watchmen, the number of houses of ill fame was set down at 300; but this return referred only to the notorious ones. A full and complete return has since been made and the real number is 655, exclusive of private houses in which girls of the town reside. In all the houses of ill fame females reside, and allowing an average of four to each house, the number residing in such places only would be 2,620. 

This return is further confirmed by the fact, that, in the year preceding the inquiry, there were apprehended 1,000 females of a particular description. Mr Bacheldor, now the excellent governor of the borough gaol, was then the principal bridewell keeper; he gave it as his decided opinion, and no one was more competent to give one, that not one fourth of the females had been apprehended. In this opinion the heads of the police, deriving their knowledge from a different source coincided.

Another return has been placed before me, which, though not absolutely bearing on the subject, is not without interest. Of 419 individuals now in the gaol, 216 profess the religious creed of church Protestants, 174 are Roman Catholics, 8 are Methodists, 17 are Presbyterians, 2 are Unitarians, 1 Baptist, and 1 Independent; 41 can neither read nor write, 59 read imperfectly, 38 read well, 127 read and write imperfectly, and 56 read and write well.

I come now to the consideration of the annual sum necessary to the support of such a criminal population. In estimating this, the expenditure of persons living upon the wages of crime, as nearly as could be estimated, was taken as the basis. The amount expended by each individual will, of course, differ according to his or her position, as stated in the paper on the table, but the average for each is not more than 80 l. per annum; and when the lavish and profligate expenditure, in which the characters in question are known to indulge, is taken into consideration, the amount will scarcely appear to be overstated. It must be borne in mind, as the report particularly observes, that the greater portion of this sum is derived from strangers; of these, including sailors, the weekly influx and departure exceed 8,000, and a small rate levied on each will be found to form a considerable proportion of the whole estimated amount: in fact, the robberies committed by a certain class of depredators on the persons of those who, with an absence from the place where they are known, throw off moral restraint, are estimated by our chiefs of police at an average of 100l. nightly [£5, or a modern-day equivalent of £ 5,583]. The reported robberies of this nature on a single night have often been from 500l [£25, or a modern-day equivalent of £ 27,920] to 1,000l. [£50, or a modern-day equivalent of £ 55,830] It must be understood, also, that the whole of the amount is not supposed to be derived from theft, a large portion of it being unquestionably the produce of voluntary contributions from the profligate. It may here be remarked, that writers on statistics seem to have had little idea of the extent of property stolen by felons. Baron Dupin, on the authority of Mr Hibbert, states that previous to the establishment of the preventive system, 1-50th part of all the sugars and 1-40th part of the rum landed at the London Docks were stolen; the quantities of colonial produce stolen during the years 1799, 1800, and 1801, were valued at 1,214,500 l. [£60,725, or a modern-day equivalent of £ 56,820,000]. The exposed situation of the Liverpool Docks, and the detached localities of the warehouses, give the utmost facility to this description of robbery, which is still further encouraged by the existence of numerous receiving houses. The system observed in the discharge of vessels is another prop to this evil: the work is let out to men called lumpers, some of whom take it at low rates, calculating to increase the produce of their labour by plunder; they form a large body, and the matter should, and I trust will, have the attention of our merchants.

I have come forward at this time solely with the hope that the subject may be taken up by those able and willing to devise and carry into effect some means for the amelioration of the condition of so many of our fellow creatures. The surveillance of a vigilant police unquestionably lessens the opportunities for the commission of crime, and leads to the quick detection of the offenders; but humanity requires, that while we take measures to punish, we should use means to reclaim. We should recollect, that ‘oft the means to do ill deeds make ill deeds done.’ I am glad to see that so great an interest is now taken in criminal statistics. One of our worthy magistrates, a few days since, observed that people were wont to go in search of the picturesque, but that now they came in pursuit of crime. Like Sancho Panza’s hare, they start up where least expected; but the subject being disagreeable and repulsive, there is no danger, I apprehend, of this kind of research becoming mischievously fashionable.

Joshua Walmsley had been elected a one of three Whig/Reformer councillors for Castle Street ward in 1835. The elections to were held on Saturday 26 December 1835, and it was the first election to Liverpool Town Council. As this was the first election to the Council, all three seats for each of the sixteen wards were up for election. The candidate in each ward with the highest number of votes was elected for three years, the candidate with the second highest number of votes was elected for two years and the candidate with the third highest number of votes was elected for one year. All of the sixteen wards were contested. The Reformers had a total of 59 councillors, and aldermen, to 5 Tories, and remained in control of the Council until 1841, when the Tories took control by 44 to 22.

Consecration of the Vicar-Apostolic of Gibraltar 1899

THE NEW VICAR-APOSTOLIC OF GIBRALTAR. CONSECRATION AT HAVERSTOCK HILL.

All who were present on Monday last at the church of the Dominican Fathers, Haverstock Hill, on the occasion of the consecration of Bishop Bellord for the Vicariate of Gibraltar must have been impressed by the fitness of the noble edifice for so great a function. The open and spacious sanctuary, well raised above the level of the nave, presented an unrestricted view to all who thronged the enormous church. The beautiful oaken stalls, carved by Peters of Antwerp, were filled with long lines of white-robed friars, black-robed Benedictines, Augurtinians and Passionists, purple-robed Monsignori, and secular priests in their graceful lace-trimmed cottas, while moving about the altar were the officiating prelates and their numerous assistants in performance of their sacred rites and clothed in the symbolic grandeur of their sacred vestments. And through all the splendour of colour and moving forms a grand simplicity was manifest. Those who were present, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, – and not a few non-Catholics were in evidence, – must have been moved, too, by the supreme care and the many safeguards with which the Church in all the details of a sublime ritual surrounds the great act by which the apostolic commission is handed down to individuals in unbroken continuity as it was received from Christ.

The Bishop of Emmaus was the consecrator, and the Assistant-Bishops were Bishop Brindle, D.S.0 , and the Bishop of Southwark. These were attended by their chaplains, the Revv. Fathers Davies and T. Hogan for the Bishop of Emmaus : Fathers Reekes and Coote for the Bishop of Southwark ; Fathers Denny and C. Cox for the Bishop of Hermopolis ; and Fathers Amigo and Armstrong for the Bishop-Elect. The Cantors were the Revv. Fathers Pennington and Wyatt, and the masters of ceremonies Fathers G. Cox and Mgr. Dunn.

Occupying places in the stalls were the Very Revv. Father John Procter, O.P., Provincial ; Father Gabriel Whitacre, O.P., Prior ; the Right Rev. Mgri. Goddard, Moyes, Fenton and Connelly; the Very Revv, Dr. Johnstone, V.G., Provost Moore, Canons Keatinge, Pycke, Scannell and Fannan ; the Revv. Dr. Aidan Gasquet, O.S.B., Father Arthur, C.P. ; Deans Lucas, Reardon, Vere ; several army chaplains ; the Very Rev. P. r ., Kelly, O.S.A. ; the Dominican Fathers Thomas Laws, Reginald Buckler, Austin Rooke, Bernard Sears, Raphael Moss, and Gilbert Tigar ; while a large number of secular priests from several dioceses were in the body of the church.

The Apostolic Brief having been read, the Bishop-elect took the episcopal oath prescribed by Pius VI. for Bishops in the British Empire. Then followed the Examen, in which, response to questions of the Consecrator, the Bishop-elect made solemn profession of faith and fealty and devotion to his episcopal duties, promising to preserve humility and patience, and to be gentle and tender to the poor and to strangers, and to all who suffer want. The Mass begins, the Litanies of the Saints are chanted, the Book of the Gospels is laid open on the shoulders of the Elect in token that while he is appointed to rule over others he himself is subject to the law of the Gospel. A swift-winged moment swept by and the mighty and mysterious act has passed. The consecrating hands have been imposed and the simple word has been spoken ; ” Receive the Holy Ghost.” Almost unobserved, the great central act has been consummated. Then the Mass proceeded, interwoven with, the signs and ceremonies continued the kiss of peace and brotherhood was given, the new-made Bishop was enthroned and endowed with mitre, ring and crozier, while the praises of the Te Deum are resounding, with his new born powers he imparts his solemn benediction. A touch of human interest was there when the Bishop proceeding round the church made scarcely perceptible pause as he extended his hand to a Sister of Mercy who knelt in the foremost seat, and thus it came about that his sister was the first to kiss his hand and receive his happy blessing.

MGR. BELLORD’S CAREER.

The Right Rev. James Bellord, to give the title in full, Bishop of Milevis and Vicar-Apostolic of Gibraltar, was born In London in 1846, educated at St. Edmund’s College, Ware, an, ordained priest at Hammersmith on March 12, 1870, Like Mgr. Brindle, the new Auxiliary Bishop to Cardinal Vaughan, Mgr. Bellord has had a distinguished career as a military chaplain. He served with the troops in Bermuda in 1875-77, and, again in 1888-92, and also through the Zulu, the Boer, and the Egyptian campaigns. Upon him devolved the sad duty of performing the last rites over the body of the late Prince Imperial of France, who, it will be remembered, lost his life during the first mentioned war. The Bishop was present at the battle of Ulundi, at which the Zulus were finally subdued at the battle of Tel-el-Kebir, in Egypt, Father Bellord was severely wounded early in the action, but, despite his own sufferings, he courageously insisted on being carried round to give the consolations of religion to the wounded and dying. For the last few years he has been attached to the garrison at Colchester. Needless to tell, he has always been most popular both with the officers and men at all the stations at which he has served. In consequence of his appointment to Gibraltar the Bishop retires from the army after near thirty years’ service.

Father Bellord is the author of some devotional works, and, last year he published a remarkable book, Meditations on Christian Dogma, founded on St. Thomas Aquinas, to which the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster contributed a preface: and which has been most favourably received. Three of his sisters are nuns, two being Sisters of Notre Dame and the other a Sister of Mercy at the convent in Crispin-street, London,

LETTER FROM THE EMPRESS EUGENIE.

After the ceremonies luncheon was provided in the Priory. Bishop Patterson, in proposing the health of the new Bishop, referred to him in warm and felicitous terms, and said he had known him man and boy all his life, and had enjoyed as well the friendship of his parents. The toast was receive enthusiastically, and drunk with musical honours. Father Amigo, on behalf of the people of Gibraltar, promised the Bishop a hearty welcome, and Mgr. Goddard, in the course of some graceful reference to the relations of the Bishop, when be was chaplain to the forces in Zululand, with the unfortunate young Prince to whom he administered the last consolations of religion, read the following letter from the Empress :

Villa Cyrnos, Cap Martin.

Cher Monsignor Goddard,—J’ai communiqué à S.M. l’Imperatrice votre lettre du 17e l’informant de la nomination du Père Bellord, à l’Evêché de Gibraltar. Sa Majesté a appris avec plaisir cette nouvelle. Elle se réjouira toujours de ce qui pourra arriver d’heureux à ceux, de près ou de loin, se rattachent à la mémoire de son malheureux fils – et elle felicite le Père Bellord de son élévation a l’Episcopat.

Sa Majesté vous remercie de votre bon souvenir. Quoiqu’elle ne pas complêtement rétablie l’état de sa santé s’est amelioré.  Veuillez agreer, cher Monsignor, l’expression de mes sentiments respectueux et dévoués.

Franceschini Pistri

The Bishop, in his reply, thanked all who had been so kind to him, and whom he held in dear remembrance. The toast of Bishop Patterson was also drank.

In the afternoon, Mr. and Mrs. E. J. Bellord held a reception at their house in Belsize Park Gardens, at which, besides the Bishops and the clergy who had assisted at the functions of the morning, the following ladies and gentlemen were present with many other friends of the family : Colonel Donovan, Major Tibbs, Major Ration, Dr. Ware, Mr. and Mrs. W. B. Hallett, Mr. and Mrs. Le Brasseur, Mr. and Mrs. E. Hanley and Miss Hanley, the Hon. Mr. Parker and Lady Parker, Mr. and Mrs. E. O’Bryen, and Mr. and Mrs. F. W. Pursell.

The members of the Deanery of Colchester presented the Bishop with a handsome pectoral cross as a token of their regard. A gift highly valued for its givers and very beautiful in itself, was the episcopal ring, presented by his sisters, who, as has been said, are nuns. The exquisite Gothic mitre, which Was worn by the Bishop at the ceremony, and was much admired for its beauty, was the gift of his brother, Mr. E. J. Bellord.

The church at Haverstock Hill is full of interest to those who have watched the Catholic revival in England and the reintroduction of the religious orders into the country.

The Friars Preachers or Dominicans, commonly called Black Friars, came into England in 1221, and founded a house in Holborn, removed in 1286 to Ludgate. This was destroyed in 1538, and the Times Office is built on part of the site. Under Queen Mary they established another community in Great St. Bartholomew’s, Smithfield, in 1556, but this was destroyed by Queen Elizabeth in 1559. On the invitation of Cardinal Wise-man, in 1861, the Friars commenced a mission in Kentish Town, and in 1863 began a Priory on Haverstock Hill, which was completed in four years, and solemnly opened May 31, 1883 , It has a total length of 200ft., the nave of 6 bays being 140ft., and the choir 60ft. Fourteen chapels and the high altar are dedicated to the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, each chapel in the aisles being 15ft. wide. The lady chapel on the right side of the choir, contains the altars of the Holy Rosary, St. Joseph and St. Dominic. The church is in the style of the 13th century, built of brick, with stone dressings. There are several good stained glass windows, especially in the choir, by Hardman and Co., Birmingham. The high altar (late decorated style) Put up and consecrated in December, 1889, cost £ 2,000. The Priory was built by the late Countess Tasker.

The above text was found on p.21,6th May 1899 in “The Tablet: The International Catholic News Weekly.” Reproduced with kind permission of the Publisher. The Tablet can be found at http://www.thetablet.co.uk .

Edwardes v. Edwardes 1854

In the Matter of the Petition for Dissolution of the Marriage of Rosette Edwardes.

I, Rosette Edwardes of No 31 Charing Grove in the county of Middlesex, the petitioner in this cause make oath and say as follows.

  1. On or about the thirty first day of May One thousand eight hundred and fifty five, I, then Rosette Lloyd, spinster, was lawfully married to Grant William Edwardes at Bathurst, River Gambia, West Coast of Africa.
  2. After my said marriage, I lived and cohabited with my said husband at Bathurst aforesaid, and at New York in the United States of America, again at Bathurst aforesaid, subsequently at Eastbourne Terrace, Hyde Park in the county of Middlesex, then at Cape Coast Castle on the West Coast of Africa, and at Eastbourne Terrace, aforesaid, and at Paris in the Empire of France, and at Aubrey Road, Notting Hill in the said county of Middlesex, afterwards at   Kensington in the said county of Middlesex, afterwards at Bathurst aforesaid, and afterwards at Brunswick gardens, Campden Hill aforesaid, and there has been no issue of the said marriage.
  3. that the said Grant William Edwardes at the latter part of the year One thousand eight hundred and sixty one whilst residing with me at Aubrey Road, Notting Hill became addicted to habits of intemperance, and frequently returned home at all hours of the night in a state of intoxication and on such occasions behaved very unkind to me abusing me in disgusting and insulting language.
  4. That on an occasion happening one night in my bedroom in the summer of the year One thousand eight hundred and sixty two, after abusing me in very insulting language, he spat in my face.
  5. That on an occasion happening in the spring of the year One thousand eight hundred and sixty three, I went to the theatre with some friends when he promised to join me in the course of the evening but did not do so, but when I returned to my friend’s house he was there – it was a very raw cold morning about one o’clock, and on my asking him to allow me to ride home, he refused, and said I must walk home, whilst walking towards home he abused me in very bad and insulting language, and struck me several times with his walking stick, pushed me in the gutter, pinched my arms, slapped me on the face, and otherwise ill-treated me, and that he afterwards put me in a cab, sent me home by myself, and did not return to his home for two nights, and then refused to inform me where he had been.
  6. That in the month of May, One thousand eight hundred and sixty four, while residing at No. 17 Brunswick Gardens, Campden Hill, Kensington in the county of Middlesex, he became very ill and was covered with sores all over his body – that I also had a very bad leg with three sores, which were very painful, and from which I suffered a great deal, but the said Grant William Edwardes would not allow me to have a Medical Man to see me, and falsely alleging that I had given him the bad disease he was suffering from, declared that he would never be a husband to me again; that one night in the month of May, One thousand eight hundred and sixty four, on his return from a dinner party at about twelve o’clock at night when I got out of bed to dress his sores as I was wont to do, he abused me in the most insulting language, said he hated me, and that he had two children by another woman, and that he and I must be like strangers to each other.
  7. That on an occasion happening one evening in the month of June, One thousand eight hundred and sixty four, whilst sitting at tea, and after abusing me and my mother, who was not present, in insulting and bad language, he threw the contents of two cups of tea over me, slapped my face with his hand, tore off my head-dress, and otherwise ill-treated me.
  8. I have been informed, and believe that during the time the said Grant William Edwardes was residing at Cape Coast aforesaid between the month of November, One thousand eight hundred and sixty, and the month of August, One thousand eight hundred and sixty one, he on divers occasions committed adultery with a woman of color, but whose name is unknown to me, at divers places at the Cape, the particulars of which I am unable to set forth.
  9. I have been informed, and believe that on an occasion happening on the twenty second day of May, One thousand eight hundred and sixty three, being the Oaks day at Epsom, the said Grant William Edwardes returned from there in company with a female named Lizzie Graham in a brougham accompanied by several others persons, that he then, in the presence of the whole party had connexion with the said Lizzie Graham in the brougham, and that afterwards on arriving in London the said Grant William Edwardes passed the night with, and committed adultery with her at a house, No.10 James Street, Haymarket, in the county of Middlesex.
  10. I have been informed, and believe that on another occasion in the month of April, One thousand eight hundred and sixty four at the said house, No.10 James Street, Haymarket, the said Grant William Edwardes committed adultery with a female named Jenny Boyce.
  11. I have been informed, and believe that since the said thirty first day of One thousand eight hundred and fifty five the said Grant William Edwardes has committed adultery with divers women whose names are unknown to me, and that I am unable to set forth the particulars of such acts of adultery
  12. No collusion or connivance exists between myself and the said Grant William Edwardes with respect to the matters contained in the relief prayed for by the said petitioner

Grant William Edwardes 1830 – 1877

Every so often an exceptional character leaps out, Grant William Edwardes (1830 – 1877) is one of those characters. He turned up just by chance, and he gives every impression of being a very bad boy.

Grant was born in London in 1830, and baptised in St Martin in the Fields in September that year. In Pallot’s Baptism Index, his parents are listed as John and Ann, and John’s profession is given as “gent”. In his brother Alfred Edmund Edwardes’ entry two years earlier, John Edwardes describes himself as a merchant,  and the family are ascribed to the parish of St Paul, Convent Garden, a five minute walk away. St Martin in the Fields church had existed in its current form for just over a hundred years by that time. But Trafalgar Square had yet to be laid out, and the National Gallery hadn’t been built.

Their parents were John Mortimer William Edwardes who was born in Pembrokeshire in 1804, and Ann Wills who had been born into a Baptist family in Cornwall in 1798. They had married in London on the eleventh of October 1827 at St George’s Bloomsbury. Alfred, their eldest son, was baptised five months later on the 16th March 1828.

The Edwardes family seem to have been at one time landed gentry in Wales, and John Edwardes’ great-uncle Francis had been the M.P. for Haverfordwest, and his first cousin once-removed, William Edwardes succeeded his father as M.P. for Haverfordwest, and was later became Baron Kensington, rather oddly as an Irish peerage. He had also inherited his maternal grandfather’s estates which included a large chunk of present day Kensington, including Holland House. So, technically, a junior branch of the Edwardes family, Francis Edwardes’s family had done very well from a good marriage.

Back to Grant’s parents, they don’t seem to be hugely prosperous, but they’re not the struggling poor either. In 1851, John and Ann Edwardes are at 22 Edward Street in Marylebone. Beyond Wells Street, the eastern portion of present-day Mortimer Street W.1 was originally developed as Charles Street, part of the Berners estate, and named after the landowner William Berners’s son and heir. The Middlesex Hospital was built there in 1755–7, house-building following on from 1759. Rather more importantly, Edward Street was at the northern end of Newman Street, Oxford Street being the southern end, and by the mid-1850’s the British and Foreign Marble Galleries of Edwardes, Edwardes & Co were at 17 Newman Street. 

Grant Edwardes seems to slip under the radar rather between his birth, and a legal notice in the London Gazette on the 5th August 1862 was the first major clue about him.

His parents, and brother Alfred show up in the 1851 census at Edward Street, where John Edwardes is described as an “invalid”, and Ann Edwardes is described as a “milliner and dress-maker”. Twenty-three year old Alfred Edwardes is living at home, working as a “marble clerk”. The rest of the household comprises one female house-servant, and three of Ann Edwardes sisters who are visiting. There is no sign of Grant.

Where he next re-surfaces is startling. On the 31st May 1855, he gets married in Bathurst, in The Gambia, on the west coast of Africa. He is twenty-one, almost twenty-two years old, his bride Rosette Lloyd who was born in 1840, was probably only just sixteen. Neither gave their age on the licence, and neither of their father’s names, or professions were recorded. A Francis Lloyd was one of the witnesses, so one can assume some sort of family consent.

Grant married in an Anglican ceremony, and his elder brother Alfred Edmund Edwardes married the following year, 1856, at the Church of the Most Holy Trinity, in Brook Green in Hammersmith in a Catholic wedding ceremony.

Grant and Rosette’s marriage did not go well, and on Christmas Eve, 1864, Francis Kearsey, a City solicitor filed her petition for divorce. He was thirty-three, and she was only twenty-four. Her grounds for the divorce were cruelty, and Grant committing adultery throughout the marriage. Rosette got her decree absolute on the 9th November 1865.

I suspect Grant’s behaviour caused a certain amount of tension within the family, to put it mildly. His partnership with his brother had ended by 1862, and the remaining partnership with Henry Burke would have been complicated. Henry Burke became Alfred Edwardes’ brother-in-law in October 1861. So rather awkwardly, Alfred had broken up the partnership with his brother, and brother-in-law, only for them to remain in partnership without him. But by 1865, a further split must have happened because Henry Burke was in sole charge of the premises at 17 Newman Street operating as W.H. Burke & Co.

Grant re-married three months after his divorce on the 8th February 1866 at St Mary’s, Paddington. He was thirty-five, his bride, Elizabeth Ponsford was twenty one.

The whole marriage seems peculiar. Elizabeth Ponsford appears to be quite respectable. Her father William, is described on the register as a “builder”, which is sort of what he described himself in the 1851 census, where he says he is a “proprietor of houses (builder out of business)”. At her brother Thomas’s marriage in 1860, William Ponsford is described as an “architect”. In 1851, the Ponsford family were living at East Lodge, in Acton. The family had three house servants, and East Lodge also had a separate gate house where the coachman/gardener lived with his family. At that point Acton was a village outside London, and comprised about 135 houses. By 1861, the family were in Sheffield Terrace, just off Kensington Church Street, where Ann Ponsford described herself as a “land proprietor”, and both her daughters Mary, and Elizabeth were described as “ladies”. William Ponsford seems to be dead. All the female members of the Ponsford family are describing themselves as “annuitants” in 1871.

So, a respectable bride, and a bridegroom who seems to be the reverse. Every detail of the marriage says something’s wrong. Every other entry on that page of the parish register is a marriage completed after the banns have been read three times in the church. Grant and Elizabeth’s marriage is by licence. Every other entry to the parish register is a marriage conducted by the vicar or curate at St Mary’s, Paddington. Grant and Elizabeth’s marriage is by a former chaplain of the Gold Coast, Africa. Grant and Elizabeth also appear to be rather grander than the vast majority of the people being married at St Mary’s Paddington.

The choice of church is also strange. St Mary’s, Paddington is about two miles away from Elizabeth Ponsonby’s family home, the much more obvious choice would have been St Mary Abbots, the local parish church, which is only half a mile away. But given that Grant and Rosette had lived at various times during their marriage in Aubrey Road, and Brunswick Gardens, the former 700 yards, and the latter 350 yards away from the Ponsford family home, perhaps the risk of getting married in St Mary Abbots was too great

The next significant problem is that Grant Edwardes calls himself a widower, but presumably this is the only way he could get married. Is it legal? I doubt it. Were the Ponsfords aware the Grant was a divorcé, almost certainly not. William Ponsford junior, Elizabeth’s brother was one of the witnesses

Grant and Elizabeth next appear in the 1871 census living at 83 Landsdowne Road in north Kensington. Grant is described as a “wine and spirit broker”. Six years later, they are to be found in Campden Hill Gardens, about a quarter of a mile away from Elizabeth’s family in Sheffield Terrace. Grant dies there on 3rd January 1877, aged forty-seven. He didn’t leave a vast fortune leaving Elizabeth just £ 450 [present-day value £325,000].  Elizabeth remained a widow for nearly forty years, dying in Brighton in 1916. She left £ 4,731 [present-day value £1.8m].

Rosette Edwardes reverted to her maiden name, and in 1871 was living in Woburn Place between Tavistock Square, and Russell Square, and just round the corner from the British Museum. She described herself as a widow aged just 31.

 

Burke v. Keith

This is the final post, at least for now, in a series called “A deeper look at the Will of William Henry Burke (1792-1870) ” . To re-cap slightly, my starting point for looking at William Burke was one of his sons-in-law Basil O’Bryen. Almost from the start of my research, Basil has been a source of fascination. Certainly a bigamist who abandoned his [second] wife and three children from two marriages. He appears to be fairly wealthy, though rather curiously, he seems not to be a beneficiary of his father’s will. Married at twenty-two to a woman ten years older, widowed, and remarried at the age of twenty-five. But, seemingly, well-thought of by William Henry Burke. As detailed in part four, I had gone to the National Archives to see whether Burke v. Keith could shed any light on the story. It does, and doesn’t, and here’s why.

The front page of the court case was a surprise.

1872-B-No 246 Filed 28th November 1872 pursuant to order dated 1st November 1872

In Chancery

between

William Henry Burke – plaintiff

and

Wilson Keith

Basil William O’Bryen, and Harriet Matilda, his wife

Mary Ann Burke, the wife of William Henry Burke.

and

William Donald Henry Burke

Edmund John Burke

Kate Alice Burke (spinster)

Sarah Elizabeth Burke (spinster)

Walter Keith Burke

all infants

Defendants

So Burke v. Keith and others is a case where Henry Burke is in a legal dispute with his sister, and two brothers-in-law, [Wilson Keith is Mary Ann Burke’s brother] and his wife, and children are also defendants in the case. Prior to this case, there had been the settlement of a caveat against the proof of WHB’s will by Henry Burke, and agreed in November 1870. More detail can be seen in “A deeper look at the Will of William Henry Burke (1792-1870) ” part four. Burke v. O’Bryen followed some time before August 1871, though very frustratingly I still don’t know what it was about. It is, however, safe to assume Henry Burke is still not happy, and, by 1872, Henry is back in court again.  There is a reference to Burke v. O’Bryen 1871 B no 80, which he partly won, in the Burke v. Keith papers, where the Vice Chancellor Sir John Wickens “recognized his right to the residuary estate” but the order was expressly made “ subject to any arrangements the parties may have made between themselves as to the same”.

This time Henry is trying to get the trust for his wife and children set aside. To summarise some of  the key parts:

William Henry Burke of 17 Newman Street, St Marylebone filed his bill of complaint in Chancery on 30th July 1872, amended 3rd October 1872. Essentially his complaint was against the trust his father set up for his daughter-in-law, and grandchildren.

“An indenture of voluntary settlement dated 6th May 1870 was made and executed between and by William Henry Burke since deceased the father of the plaintiff William Henry Burke of the one part and the said William Henry Burke the father, the defendant Harriett Matilda O’Bryen (therein called Harriett Matilda Burke), the defendant Wilson Keith, and the defendant Basil William O’Bryen on the other part as follows: – “

All their addresses are given, William and Harriett Burke are at 32 Thistle Grove, South Kensington, Wilson Keith “of Earls Court, esquire”, and Basil O’Bryen at 18 Gunter Grove, Chelsea. The settlement document was witnessed by John Roche O’Bryen at 28 Thistle Grove, and Corinne O’Bryen who was at 18 Thistle Grove on or about 6th May 1870. 

The “ indenture witnesseth that in pursuance of the said recited desire on the part of the settlor and in consideration of the love and affection which the settlor has and beareth towards his daughter-in-law Mary Anne Burke, the wife of his son Henry Burke, and her issue by his son”

It’s all slightly strange, initially it seems to be WHB looking after his daughter-in-law, and some of his grandchildren. The question is why? Henry Burke was thirty-five years old, he was first a sculptor, and then set up his own firm W. H. Burke & Co.,  who were “at first sculptors and importers of marble and bronze before becoming one of the pioneering firms of the Victorian mosaic revival.” By 1871, he was occupying all of 17 Newman Street, just off Oxford Street  ” these ‘very extensive premises’ included an octagonal modelling room and a large ‘marble yard’ extending behind the neighbours at Nos 18 and 19, reached via Newman Passage.”  In the late 1850s the main premises had become the British and Foreign Marble Galleries of Edwardes, Edwardes & Co., boasting the largest stock in Europe of marble sculpture, and by 1865 were Henry’s workshops. In 1851-2, the octagon room had been used as a studio by Ford Madox Brown, and Dante Gabriel Rossetti. Henry Burke had been in partnership with the Edwardes brothers, and Alfred Edwardes was married to Henry Burke’s elder sister Elizabeth. Henry was recorded in the 1871 census as employing 28 men, and 1 boy. So he appears to have been doing quite well, so why did his father feel the need to provide for Mary Burke separately?

The settlement was arranged to pay Mary £ 300 a year in equal quarterly payments for her “sole separate and inalienable use” with a further caveat that if Henry becomes bankrupt then Mary Burke gets all the income over and above the £300 per year [using the same methodology as elsewhere in these posts, it is a modern-day equivalent of £ 224,000]. Otherwise, the rest of the income is to be invested until the youngest child is 24 or in the case of girls married. The trustees can dispose of assets as they see fit. 

Henry and Mary Burke’s children were

  • William Donald Henry Burke , then aged 10
  • Edmund John Burke then aged 8
  • Kate Alice Burke (spinster) then aged 6
  • Sarah Elizabeth Burke (spinster) then aged 3
  • Walter Keith Burke  then aged 1
  • and George Arthur Burke who died, aged four months, in July 1868

Henry claims that he is entitled to the residuary estate of his father, and the trust funds should be part of it because the length of the entail is so long as to make it ” void ”, and he should get the income apart from Mary’s £ 300 p.a.

This is where it all gets unbelievably frustrating. Three large archive boxes full of papers, most of which were un-related to the case, and crucially NO VERDICT.

It still sheds very little light on why twenty-two year old Basil O’Bryen was regarded as a suitable trustee. Wilson Keith, Mary Burke’s younger brother seems slightly better, but even then he’s only twenty-six. It does make one wonder if part of Henry’s case was simply pique at having to deal with two much younger trustees?

John Roche O’Bryen’s will – 1870

THIS IS THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT of me John Roche O’Bryen Esquire of Thistle Grove Brompton in the County of Middlesex Doctor of Medicine I appoint my dear wife Celia Mary O’Bryen and the Reverend Henry Hewett O’Bryen D.D. my oldest son to be Executrix and Executors and Trustees of this my Will and Guardians of my infant children during their respective minorities And I direct that my children be educated in the one Holy Catholic Church of which Pius IX is now Pope. I bequeath to my said dear wife all the wines liquors and other consumable effects which shall at my decease be in or about my dwelling house I also bequeath to my said wife the sum of one hundred pounds for her immediate occasion to be paid to her as soon as conveniently may be after my decease I devise the freehold copyhold and leasehold estates to which I shall be entitled at my decease with their appurtenants unto and to the use of my said trustees their heirs executors administrators and assigns according to the nature thereof respectively upon trust when and as my said trustees in order to effectuate any of the purposes of my Will or with a view to the advantage of my estate for the more convenient division thereof among the persons entitled thereto shall in their discretion find it necessary or expedient so to do to sell my said estates or any part thereof together or in parcels by public auction or private contract or to raise money by mortgaging in fee or for years or by charging my said estates or any part thereof and to do all acts requisite for effecting or facilitating any sale mortgage or charge pursuant to this trust I bequeath the residue of my Personal Estate and effects of every kind to which I shall be entitled at my decease unto the said Celia Mary O’Bryen and the Reverend Henry Hewett O’Bryen upon trust subject as herein after mentioned to convert into money get in and receive so much thereof as shall not consist of ready money or of such investments in stocks funds or securities (whether of the description contemplated by the trust for investment herein after contained or not) as my said trustees shall think it desirable to continue And I direct my said trustees to receive the money to arise from my said residuary personal estates and stand possessed thereof together with the stocks funds and securities to be continued as last aforesaid upon the trusts herein after declared concerning the same And as to the monies to arise from the execution of the trusts herein before contained concerning my real and residuary personal estate and not presently applicable to the purposes of my Will I direct my said trustees to invest the same in their names in or upon any of the securities herein after mentioned And I authorize them to vary and transpose at their discretion as well the stocks funds and securities whereon such investment shall be made as any stocks funds or securities which shall at my decease compose part of my personal estate for any other stocks funds or securities of the description contemplated by the preceding direction And I direct my said trustees to stand seized and possessed of my residuary real and personal estate upon the trusts herein after expressed and declared concerning the same that is to say upon trust to permit my said wife to occupy and enjoy at 28 Thistle Grove my residence aforesaid and to have the use of the furniture and other effects in and about the same including the horse and carriage during her life provided she shall so long remain my widow And upon trust to pay the net income arising from the residue of my said real and personal estate to my said dear wife Celia Mary for her life for the maintenance of herself and children and their education which I request may be of the best character in her power In the event of my said wife Celia Mary marrying again after my decease she will have the interest of her own fortune which is already settled upon her And I direct my trustees to stand possessed of the income of my residuary estate during the remainder of the life of my said wife upon trust for the equal benefit of all my children by my said wife And upon trust from and after my decease to set apart out of my residuary estate the sum of one thousand pounds or stocks or shares forming part of my residuary estate of that value at the market price of the day and to pay or transfer the same to the trustees for the time being of a certain Indenture of Settlement bearing date the thirteenth day of May one thousand eight hundred and seventy made between me of the first part my daughter Corine Margaret O’Bryen of the second part and Mrs Mary Celia O’Bryen and Miss Harriet Matilda Burke of 32 Thistle Grove aforesaid of the third part to be held by such trustees upon such and the same trusts as are declared in and by the said Indenture of the trust estate thereby settled And upon trust after the decease of my said wife Celia Mary to set apart out of my residuary estate the further sum of three thousand pounds or stocks and shares forming part of my residuary estate of that value at the market price of the day to be held by them upon trusts herein after expressed and declared for the benefit of my daughter Evelyn and her issue and to set apart in like manner the sum of two thousand pounds for each of my other children by my said wife Celia Mary living at my death And I direct that the income to arise from each said sum of three thousand pounds and the said sums of two thousand pounds and the investments thereof shall be applied to the benefit of my children respectively until they shall respectively attain the age of twenty five years when the corpus shall be paid to sons and shall be settled upon daughters in manner following that is to say Upon trust to pay the income thereof respectively to such daughter for her sole and separate use free from the control of her husbands and so that such daughters shall not have power to dispose of the income in the way of anticipation And upon trust after the decease of my said daughter in trust for all or such one or more of the child and children and remoter issue of my said daughter such remoter issue being born during the life time of my same daughter at such ages or times or age or time in such shares if more than one upon such conditions and in such manner as my same daughter shall by any deed or deeds with or without power of revocation shall appoint And in default of such appointment and so far as any such appointment shall not extend in trust for all the children of my said daughter who being a son or sons shall attain the age of twenty four years or being a daughter or daughters shall attain that age or marry under that age in equal shares and if there shall be but one such child then the whole to be in trust for such one child And subject to the payment of the several last mentioned sums be and shall stand possessed of my residuary real and personal estate in trust to pay or set apart in manner aforesaid and to transfer to the trustees of the said Indenture of Settlement of the thirteenth day of May one thousand eight hundred and seventy and to stand possessed of the ultimate residue of my estate in trust for such child or children of mine by my said wife Celia Mary as she shall by Will or deed appoint at her discretion the sons when they shall attain the age of twenty five years the daughters when they shall attain that age or marry under that age with the consent (if marrying after my death) of her or their respective guardian or guardians and if more than one in equal shares Provided always and I declare that if any child of mine for whom provision is made by this my Will shall die in my life time leaving issue in existence at my death and who being male attain the age of twenty one years or being female attain that age or marry under that age of each such child of mine so dying shall take by substitution as tenants in common in equal shares per stirpes if more than one (and so that no issue remoter than a child of such deceased child shall take except in case of the death in my life time of his her or their own parent and in the place of such parent) the provision which such child of mine would have taken under the trust in that behalf herein before declared had he or she survived but Provided always and I hereby declare that it shall be lawful for the said trustees or trustee for the time being after the death or future marriage of my said wife or during her widowhood with her consent in writing (and so that the present power may be resorted to for the purpose of making an addition to any of the respective legacies herein before bequeathed to each of my sons attaining the age of twenty five years and to each of my daughters attaining that age or marrying under that age with such consent as aforesaid and so augmenting the provision then immediately available for any such son or daughter of mine respectively) to raise any part or parts not exceeding in the whole one half of the then expectant share or presumptive share of any child under the trusts herein before declared and to apply the same for his or her advancement or benefit as the said trustees or trustee shall think fit And I hereby declare that the said trustees or trustee for the time being shall after the death or future marriage of my said wife apply the whole or such part as they or he shall think fit of the interest dividends and income of the share to which any child shall for the time being be entitled in expectancy under the trusts herein before declared for or towards his or her maintenance or education and may either themselves or himself apply the same or may pay the same to the guardian or guardians of such child for the purpose aforesaid without seeing to the application thereof and shall during such suspense of absolute vesting as aforesaid accumulate all the residue (if any) of the same interest dividends and income in the way of compound interest by investing the same and the resulting income thereof in or upon any such stocks funds shares or securities as are herein after mentioned for the benefit of the person or persons who under the trusts herein contained shall become entitled to the principal fund from which the same respectively shall have proceeded and may resort to the accumulations of any preceding year or years and apply the same for or towards the maintenance or education of the child for the time being presumptively entitled to the same in the same manner as such accumulations might have been applied had they been interest dividends or income arising from the original trust funds in the year in which they shall be so applied Provided always and I hereby declare that it shall be lawful for my trustees for the time being to defer and postpone the sale reversion and collection of the whole or any part or parts of my said real and personal estate respectively so long as to such trustees or trustee shall in their or his uncontrolled discretion deem proper but my real estate shall for the purpose of transmission be impressed with the quality of personalty from the time of my death And I empower the said trustees or trustee during such interval or postponement to manage and to let upon lease or from year to year my real and leasehold estates and to make out of the income or capital of my real and personal estate any outlay which such trustees or trustee may consider proper for improvements repairs insurance calls or shares premiums or policies or otherwise for the benefit or in respect of my real or personal estate And I declare that the net rents and profits or other income produced from every or any part of my real or personal estate previously to the conversion or collection thereof pursuant to the trusts herein before declared shall be applied in the same manner in all respects as if the same were income proceeding from such investments as are herein after directed or authorized and that the whole of the income produced from my estate (real or personal) in the actual condition or state of investment for the time being whether consisting of property or investments of an authorized or of an unauthorized description and whether of a permanent or a wasting character shall as well during the first year from my death and at all times afterwards be applicable as income under the trusts of this my Will no part thereof being in any event liable to be retained as corpus or capital but no reversion or other property not actually producing income which shall form part of my estate shall under the doctrine of constructive conversion or otherwise be treated as producing income or as entitling any party to the receipt of income Provided always and I further declare that notwithstanding any thing herein before contained any investments taken or made for the purpose of this my Will during the widowhood of my said wife (whether originally or upon a variation or transposition of investments) may with her concurrence and consent (whether she shall at the time be a trustee for the purposes of this my Will or not) be taken or made (if the trustees or trustee for the time being of this my Will shall so think fit and in their his or her discretion) in or upon any Government or real or leasehold securities in the United Kingdom or Bank Stock or the Debenture Guaranteed or Preferred Stock or Shares or the debentures or obligations of any Railway or other Incorporated Company of the United Kingdom Colonial Bonds and Russian (Nicola) Bonds or any other stocks funds shares or securities which the said trustees or trustee shall consider fitting and safe and every investment so taken or made shall be deemed to all intents and purposes an authorized investment Provided always and I declare that the provision hereby made for my said wife shall be accepted by her in satisfaction and bar of the dower and freebeuth to which by the Common Law or by Custom she might be entitled in or out of the freehold copyhold or customary hereditaments of or to which I have been or am or shall be seized or entitled Provided always and I further declare that (unless as to any such sum I shall in writing direct to the contrary) all sums which I shall in my life time advance or give or covenant or agree to advance or give to or with any of my children on his or her marriage or otherwise for his or her advancement or preferment shall be taken in or towards satisfaction of the provision intended to be hereby made for such children (as to a child dying in my life time) for his or her issue taking by way of substitution as aforesaid for such child respectively and shall be brought into hotchpot and accounted for accordingly But so that with respect to any child of mine any such future advancement shall be taken as being primarily in or towards satisfaction of the legacy herein before bequeathed to such child of mine respectively and as to the excess only (if any) of the amount of such advancement above such legacy respectively shall be taken in or towards satisfaction of the share of such child in my residuary estate And with respect to the issue of any child of mine dying in my life time and such future advancement in favour of the parent shall not be accounted for unless the total amount of such advancement shall exceed two thousand pounds and then shall only be accounted for to the extent of the excess of such advancement above such sum of two thousand pounds And I declare that if any question shall arise as to the amount to be accounted for the same shall be determined by the trustees or trustee for the time being of this my Will (other than the child the value of whose advancement shall be in question if such child shall happen to be a trustee of this my Will) according to their his or her discretion and such determination shall be final And I declare that if the trustees hereby appointed or either of them shall die in my life time or if they or either of them or any future trustee or trustees of this my Will shall die or desire to retire from or refuse or become incapable to act in the trusts of this my Will before the trust shall be fully performed then and in every such case it shall be lawful for my said wife during her life and after her decease for the continuing trustees or trustee for the time being of this my Will or if there shall be no continuing trustee then for the retiring or refusing trustees or trustee or the executors or administrators of the last acting trustee to appoint any other person or persons to be a trustee or trustees in the place of the trustee or trustees so dying or desiring to retire or refusing or becoming incapable to act as aforesaid with liberty upon any such appointment to increase or diminish the original number of trustees and upon every such appointment the trust premises shall be so conveyed and transferred that the same may become vested in the new trustee or trustees either jointly with the continuing trustee or trustees or solely as the case may require and every such new trustee (as well before as after the trust premises shall have become vested in him) shall have all the powers and authorities of the trustee in whose place he shall be substituted I devise and bequeath all estates vested in me as a trustee or mortgagee unto the said Celia Mary O’Bryen and the Reverend Henry Hewett O’Bryen their heirs executors and administrators subject to the trusts and equities affecting the same respectively but so that the money secured by any mortgage shall form part of my personal estate In witness whereof I the said John Roche O’Bryen the testator have to this my last Will and Testament contained in this and the nine preceding sheets of paper set my hand this sixteenth day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy – John R. O’Bryen M.D. – Signed by the said John Roche O’Bryen the testator as and for his last Will and Testament in the presence of us (present at the same time) who at his request in his presence and in the presence of each other have hereunto subscribed our names as witnesses – William Henry Burke 32 Thistle Grove, Brompton  – Chas Jas Richards Clerk to Jas Warner 61 Chancery Lane & 9 Livermere Road, Dalston

 

The Grant of Probate for John Roche O’Bryen’s Will shows assets valued at under £14,000. 

This transcription of John Roche O’Bryen’s Will is reproduced from the original manuscript copy retained by the Probate Office Sub Registry in York .

A deeper look at the Will of William Henry Burke (1792-1870) part 4, Burke v. O’Bryen

A little over a year ago, I came across this in the national Archives catalogue,  ” Cause number: 1872 B246. Short title: Burke v Keith.”  Basil and Harriet O’Bryen were somehow involved in the case. I registered for a reader’s ticket, given the required notice because the records were stored off site, and was booked in for a visit to the National Archives in Kew.

National Archives, Kew

My original plan was to see if anything about Burke v. Keith could shed any light on Burke v. O’Bryen. It was a rather odd experience. Very close, in fact only a few stops on the Overground. Almost airport-style searches for entry into the reading rooms, and then a collection of the materials ordered via a rather strange two-way locker system.  Everyone else seemed to be either collecting books, or A4 box files, or even large heavy-duty brown envelopes. What I seemed to be collecting was larger. “Ah, the large order” was what the lady at the desk said ” I’ll bring the trolley round to your locker. It’ll probably be best if you take the boxes out one at a time, and return each one before you collect the next.”

What turned up was three cardboard archive boxes, each tied with rather elderly bits of string, and after a lot of looking through irrelevant, unrelated cases. I found this

1872-B-No 246 Filed 28th November 1872 pursuant to order dated 1st November 1872

In Chancery

between

William Henry Burke – plaintiff

and

Wilson Keith

Basil William O’Bryen, and Harriet Matilda, his wife

Mary Ann Burke, the wife of William Henry Burke.

and

William Donald Henry Burke

Edmund John Burke

Kate Alice Burke (spinster)

Sarah Elizabeth Burke (spinster)

Walter Keith Burke

all infants

Defendants

So Burke v. Keith and others is a case where Henry Burke is in a legal dispute with his sister, and two brothers-in-law, [Wilson Keith is Mary Ann Burke’s brother] and his wife, and children are also defendants in the case. What follows is fairly full and verbatim:

The joint and several answer of Wilson Keith, Basil William O’Bryen, and Harriett Matilda, his wife, three of the above-named defendants to the amended bill of complaint of the above named Plaintiff.

In answer to the amended said bill we, Wilson Keith, Basil William O’Bryen, and Harriett Matilda O’Bryen, say as follows-

  1. We believe the statements contained in the first eight paragraphs of the Plaintiff’s Bill of Complaint are correct.
  2. The said William Henry Burke the testator in the Bill named made his will dated the 6th day of May 1870 and thereby after making certain bequests and devises he gave all the residue of his real and personal estate to his daughter the defendant Harriett Matilda O’Bryen then Harriett Matilda Burke absolutely and he appointed the defendant Harriett Matilda O’Bryen and George William Wood and the defendant Basil William O’Bryen, executrix and executors of his said will.
  3. The said testator died on the 17th July 1870 without having revoked or altered his said will except so far as the same was revoked or altered by a codicil thereto which did not affect the disposition of residue or the appointment of executors in the will contained.
  4. Upon the testator’s death a caveat was entered by the Plaintiff William Henry Burke  against the proof of the said will and codicil. The said caveat was however withdrawn and the said will and codicil admitted to probate upon an arrangement being come to between the Plaintiff and the defendant Harriett Matilda O’Bryen then Harriett Matilda Burke. The said arrangement was embodied in the following agreement which was duly signed by the solicitors of the parties on 19th November 1870.

“Miss Burke to assign Green’s mortgage debt and the West Drayton mortgage and the securities for the same”

“Miss Burke to take upon herself payment of Mr and Mrs Shea’s annuity”

“Mr Burke to provide for the child Rhoda and to pay Messrs Jenkinsons’ and Mr Lovejoy’s charges and expenses in respect of Green’s mortgage.”

“Miss Burke to pay all debts and charges out of residue, The household furniture, plate, linen, brougham, and horse and things in and about the house and premises not to be considered residue but to be the property of Miss Burke.

“Miss Burke to be entitled to retain out of residue £200 and £500 to dispose of as she sees fit.”

“The balance of the residue (if any)to be handed to Mr Burke.”

“Miss Burke to execute deeds in accordance with drafts marked, A,B, and C. Mr Burke to execute deed in accordance with draft marked D.

“If residue insufficient to pay the debts and charges including the £200 and £500 Mr Burke is to make up deficiency to the extent of £1000 to be paid in equal instalments in one and two years. If the deficiency should not exceed £500 to be paid within one year and if not exceeding £250 to be paid on demand.

It’s not Burke v. O’Bryen, in fact it seems to be rather the reverse. An out-of-court settlement between Henry Burke and his younger sister, which seems to be very much in his favour. Harriet does get most, if not all, of the house contents, but by and large, Henry Burke seems to have got his way regarding the residue.

It still leaves the question about what exactly Burke v. O’Bryen in 1871 was about. It must have happened between the 1st February, when Harriet and Basil were married, and 8th August 1871 when the notice was published in the London Gazette. 

There are two other major questions raised by Harriet and Henry’s settlement. First,  why does Henry agree for “Mr Burke to provide for the child Rhoda.” Who is she, and why does she need to be provided for? Secondly, who are Mr and Mrs Shea, and why does Harriet ” take upon herself payment of Mr and Mrs Shea’s annuity” ?

The other person who doesn’t really seem to appear much is Elizabeth Sarah Burke. In 1870, she was forty years old , and had been married to Alfred Edwardes for fourteen years, all five of their children had been born, and their eldest son was about eleven years old. Both Elizabeth and Alfred seem to have avoided the dispute.

But the next step is to look in greater detail about what Burke v. Keith can tell us.

A deeper look at the Will of William Henry Burke (1792-1870) part 3, the court cases.

Part of the William Henry Burke story  [If you haven’t seen part 1 and part 2 use the links here]  was always going to come from what the court case was. Quite early on, I had come across this cutting from the London Gazette.

So it’s quite clear that there has been some sort of argument about the will. Given the title of the case referred to “Burke against O’Bryen” and that George Wood is “one of the defendants and executors”, it must be the case that either Basil or Harriet O’Bryen, or, most likely, both, were also defendants. The only close adult member of the Burke family likely to be the claimant is (William) Henry Burke, and it appears from this notice that he had some sort of dispute with his sister, and a brother-in-law. So the search was on for what the case was about. We knew from the details in the ” Illustrated London News “ in January 1871 that WHB left about £ 18,000. The only figures in that clipping were that Henry Burke received shares worth £ 6,070 ” beyond any other provision made for him “. We also know that he made “provision and settlement for his two daughters, and daughter in law,” , and that Harriet received £ 500 to give to charity as she saw fit, and that she was the  “residuary legatee of both his real and personal estate “. So the bulk of the estate, almost two-thirds in fact, are either settled on the daughters, and daughter-in-law, or part of the residual estate. Harriet also seems to get the family home, and potentially other property as well.

32 Thistle Grove [now Drayton Gardens] in South Kensington was a fairly new-built house, construction had started in 1845, with the majority of the houses completed by the end of the 1850’s. It had probably cost in the region of about £ 600 to build. So not a bad thing to inherit. All in all, Harriet and Basil seem to have done fairly well from her inheritance, certainly well enough for Henry Burke to feel hard done by.

The next step was to try to track down the details of Burke against O’Bryen. After a lot of fruitless searching, I finally came across something in the National Archives catalogue, having searched under O’Bryen. The following came up:

Cause number: 1872 B246. Short title: Burke v Keith.

Plaintiffs: William Henry Burke.

Defendants: Wilson Keith, Basel William O’Bryen, Harriett Matilda O’Bryen his wife, Mary Anne Burke (wife of William Henry Burke) and William Donald Henry Burke, Edmund John Burke, Kate Alice Burke spinster, Sarah Elizabeth Burke spinster and Walter Keith Burke.

The title of the court case isn’t Burke v. O’Bryen exactly, but it’s definitely a court case involving Henry Burke, his sister Harriet, and Basil O’Bryen. It had to be worth looking at, so a little over a year ago, I’d registered for a reader’s ticket, given the required notice because the records were stored off site, and was booked in for a visit to the National Archives in Kew.