Tracing James BULL

James Bull is one of the most enigmatic of our ancestors. He was married to a Mary Ann whose surname is unknown and was the father of James Honeyman BULL baptised in 1831 in St James Piccadilly. What exactly do we know about this elusive ancestor?

What do we actually know?

The first definite reference to him is in 1 May 1831 when his son James Honeyman BULL was baptised as the son of James BULL and Mary Ann. We have suggestions as to earlier references than this, but this is the first confirmed record. At that time their address was given as ‘6 Eden Lane, Pimlico’ and James was a Leatherdresser. James Honeyman Bull’s age was given as ‘above 1 1/2 years’ meaning he was born late 1829.

Baptism of James Honeyman BULL 1831
Baptism of James Honeyman BULL on 1 May 1831. The parents are James and Mary Ann and he is a leatherdresser of Eden Lane in Pimlico. The age was ‘Above 1yr and 1/2’.

The only other confirmed reference was when James Honeyman Bull got married in 1855. He described his father as James Bull innkeeper. There is no mention that James Bull was ‘deceased’ on the marriage certificate, although it is not clear that that would have necessarily been recorded. This indicates that between 1831 and 1855, James BULL had changed profession from leatherdresser to innkeeper.

What can we reasonably infer?

If James Honeyman Bull was born in 1829, we can infer that James BULL married Mary Ann sometime before say 1828. Since the father was James, and the son was called James, it might be reasonable to assume that James is one of the first children, possibly even the first child. This would make the marriage closer to 1828, rather than, for example, 1818.

By 1831, the family is in ‘6 Eden Lane’ in Pimlico. Strangely Pimlico was not in the parish of St James Piccadilly, where the baptism took place, and we cannot find such an address in Pimlico. However there is an ‘Eaton Lane’, which was an address in Pimlico. In the 1828 rates for St George Hanover Square (the parish with covered Eaton Lane), we find that number 6 Eaton Court [sic] is occupied by ‘Mrs BULL’. A Sun Life Assurance policy from 1839 insures a property in ‘Eaton Court, Eaton Lane, Pimlico’ suggesting that Eaton Court is a mews or a lane within Eaton Lane. This Mrs Bull may therefore be James Bull’s mother, or possibly his wife, if he himself is absent.

James BULL is not described as ‘deceased’ on his son’s marriage certificate. We cannot incontrovertibly conclude that James Bull was alive in 1855 – this registrar might not have recorded whether a parent were deceased – but it suggests he was. If he were alive, he should therefore be found on the 1841 and 1851 censuses.

The choice of name ‘James Honeyman BULL’ is unusual – there were relatively few double names at this time. Honeyman is a Scots name, particularly strong in Fife, and using a surname as a middle name in this way as a middle name is a particularly Scots tradition. It hints tantalisingly at a Scots heritage, either for him or for his wife Mary Ann. In future years, James Honeyman Bull would call his daughter Harriet Chilwell Honeyman Bull, named after the child’s grandmother Harriet CHILWELL. Following that model, it might mean that Mary Ann’s maiden name was HONEYMAN and/or that James Honeyman BULL’s grandfather was James HONEYMAN. Certainly James BULL was close to, and probably closely related to, someone whose name was Honeyman.

Searching for More Records: The Marriage to Mary Ann

As yet, there is no marriage we can find between a James BULL and a Mary Ann HONEYMAN. If we assume that James BULL and Mary Ann were married around 1825 +/- 5 years, then there are two marriages in the London area that fit the bill:

Mary Ann NEALE 28 Apr 1828 at St Leonard Shoreditch
Mary Ann HOLLOWAY 19 Feb 1827 at St George Hanover Square

Marriage of James BULL = Mary Ann HOLLOWAY 1827
Marriage of James BULL and Mary Ann HOLLOWAY in 1827 in St George Hanover Square. The witnesses are William HOLLOWAY and Sarah BARNETT.  The marriage of Sarah BARNETT is the next entry in the register and it is witnessed by Mary Ann BULL, using her married name for the first time.

The marriage of James Bull to Mary Ann Holloway took place on 19th February 1827 at St. George Hanover Square by Banns. Both parties were from that parish. The latter is the most interesting, since Pimlico lay within this parish – the place we know them to be in 1831. The Witnesses were William Holloway, undoubtedly related to Mary Ann, and Sarah Barrett. The next wedding in the same register on the same day is Frederick Marsh and Sarah Barrett, also of that parish by Banns. The witnesses to that marriage are John Wing and Mary Ann Bull (using her married name for the first time). It could be that this was a double wedding and that Sarah Barrett and Mary Ann Holloway were related. Conversely, it might mean that neither couple had arrived at the church with witnesses and asked others in the same situation to witness for them.

Of course, James Bull and Mary Ann may not have been married but simply lived as such.

Are There Other Siblings of James Honeyman BULL? 

Possibly. There is a James BULL with a wife Mary Ann in All Saints, Huntingdon, having children born between 1828 to 1836 at a rate of one every two years, but there is no evidence that this family left Huntingdon. This is not our family.

In 1826, there is a baptism and birth of a Mary Anne BULL, daughter of James and Mary Ann in the Wesleyan registers, for a family in St Clement Danes, just a few miles from Pimlico.

Baptism of Mary Ann BULL 1826
Baptism of Mary Ann BULL, born 29 Jan 1826 on the Wesleyan Circuit in London.

Is this a sister of James Honeyman BULL? It is possible. If Mary Ann were a sister of James Honeyman Bull, we would need to explain why the family is moving between different denominations. If this is James Honeyman Bull’s sister, then neither wedding we have identified is the right one, since Mary Ann BULL is born in 1826 before the earliest marriage we have found. This family appears on the 1841 census, still in St Clement Danes with a son Joseph (b. 1822) and a lodger Charles REES (see note 23 below).

What if We Assume Mary Ann was Mary Ann HONEYMAN?

If she was Mary Ann HONEYMAN, then she would have been born around say 1805, being say 24 when James Honeyman BULL was born in 1829. There are two possibilities:

1. a baptism in St Olave Bermondsey for a Mary Ann HONEYMAN, daughter of James and Mary HONEYMAN, baker, born 10 Jun 1806 and baptised 29 Jun 1806 and There is a burial entry on 28 Oct 1808 for a Maria HONEYMAN, but it does not state whether this is an infant burial or an adult. A son John HONEYMAN is born in 1810. There follow no more baptisms to James and Mary, but in 1819, there is a daughter Matilda Lucrezia born to James and Elizabeth HONEYMAN, Leather Stainer. James might have married Elizabeth after the death of Mary, or this may be another couple entering the area with older children born elsewhere. There does not appear to be a marriage by Mary Ann HONEYMAN.

2. A baptism at St George the Martyr, Southwark, of Mary Ann Susannah HONEYMAN, daughter of Francis Robert HONEYMAN and Sarah born 17 Dec 1803 and baptised 15 Jan 1804, who is a leather dresser. She is alive in 1828 when she witnesses the marriage of her sister Anne Maria to the actor John Baldwin BUCKSTONE.

The key thing is that there are two credible Mary Ann HONEYMANs who could be James BULL’s wife. That would make sense of the use of Honeyman as a middle name in James Honeyman BULL.

James and Mary Ann BULLs from the Census

  1. James BULL of Finsbury

There is a Phoebe Ann BULL born 28 Jan 1836, the child of James and Mary Ann BULL, Oilman of Whitecross Street, St Luke’s Finsbury amongst the Quaker birth registers. On the 1851 Census, the family is at 7 1/2 Coleman Street, Finsbury. By 1851 he is a ‘Housekeeper’, aged 45 of Stock, Essex; Mary Ann is 43, born Purleigh, Essex and they now have a daughter Emma born in 1841.

This family has some attractions. First, our James starts as a leatherdresser and this James is an oilman. Are these equivalent jobs? Leather dressing involved the rendering of hides and the removal of fats, so this is not entirely impossible. This James goes on to become a ‘housekeeper’ whereas our James becomes an ‘Innkeeper’. Clearly both change jobs at the same time. However Emma’s birth certificate (below) shows that the wife Mary Ann is nee RADLEY. We can trace James BULL in the Quaker records. He married Mary Ann RADLEY on 17 May 1832, after James Honeyman BULL was baptised. This is not our man.

Emma BULL 1841- Birth certificate
The birth certificate of Emma BULL born in 1841. Her mother’s maiden name was Radley. This James BULL can be traced in Quaker records.

2. James BULL of Clarence Hotel, Brighton

A James BULL is an Hotel Keeper owning the Clarence Hotel Brighton in 1851. He is aged 59, born Billericay, Essex with a wife Eliza aged 43, born Brighton and a daughter Eliza F BULL aged 18 born London. This family is attractive because James is an Innkeeper and they were in London around 1833 when the daughter “Eliza F BULL” was born. This James BULL is a freeman of the Worshipful Company of Innkeepers, being made free of the company in 1832. Eliza Frances BULL was baptised 28 May 1832 in St Sepulchre, London while James worked as an innkeeper on Snow Hill, London. The marriage was by licence and the licence survives. It shows the marriage to have taken place in Brighton in 1831. However this date is after James Honeyman BULL was born. It might have been possible that our James BULL married twice, first to Mary Ann, who died, and then to Eliza. However, this James BULL is a bachelor in the marriage to Eliza. Furthermore, the family received bequests in the will of Joseph ENNEVER in 1837 but James Honeyman BULL is not mentioned. He appears on the 1841 census as the Tavern Keeper of the Kings Arms Tavern on Snow Hill, St Sepulchre, London with his wife (MA) and his daughter Eliza F (b. 1832) (see note 28 below). This James BULL is not our man.

James BULL = Eliza DUMBRELL marriage licence 1831
Marriage Licence of James BULL innkeeper and Eliza DUMBRELL in 1831. She is from Brighton, which explains why James BULL moved there in later life. However the marriage in 1831, after the birth of James Honeyman BULL and this James BULL is a bachelor.


James BULL on the 1841 Census

We have looked on the 1841 census for a James BULL with wife Mary or Mary Ann and a son James born ~1829 born Middlesex. There are no entries that fit that bill, and so below are a list of all the entries that correspond to James Honeyman BULL (b 1829) and James BULL his father. Note that ages on the 1841 census are vague and the place of birth is only shown as being in the same parish. Since there is no entry that meets all our requirements, we need to consider the possibility that parts of the entry are misentered, or that James or Mary Ann remarried.

James BULL born 1829 +/- 2 years

  1. Ann BULL = John BULL, children Ben, James (b. 1830), Martha, Mary, Rachel. Living in Poplar, born Middlesex. (NO)
  2. William BULL = Sarah, children James (b. 1831), William, Jane, living in St John Hackney, born Middlesex.
  3. John BULL = Ann, children Ann, Charlotte, James (b. 1829), John, Martha, Mary, living in St Marylebone, born Middlesex
  4. James BULL = Jane, children George, James (b. 1831), Jane, Mary J, Susan, William. Also Robert SMITH. Living in Lambeth, born Surrey.
  5. James BULL = Charlotte, children James (b. 1831). No birth place given, living St George the Martyr, Southwark.

James BULLs born 1829 +/- 10 years.

  1. James BULL = Eliza, children Henry, James (b. 1833), Stephen, William. Living St Mary Magdelene Bermondsey, born Surrey.
  2. William BULL = Ann, children Abraham, Ann, Edward, Isaac, James (b. 1834). Living Christchurch Spitalfields, born Middlesex.
  3. John BULL = Mary, children George, James (b. 1834), John, Margaret, Mary Ann. Living St Marylebone, born Middlesex.
  4. Mary BULL (no husband), children Charles, George, James (b. 1827), John, Robert, Sarah. Living Stepney, born Middlesex.
  5. James BULL (no wife), children James (b. 1826) living St Ann Limehouse. (POSSIBLE)
  6. Joseph BULL = Mary, children Charles, Francis, James (b. 1836). Living St Botolph without Bishopsgate.
  7. William BULL = Hannah, children Emma, James (b. 1826), Jane. Living St Pancras, born Middlesex.
  8. James BULL (b. 1825) living at St Leonard’s Shoreditch.
  9. James BULL = Lydia, children Alice, James (b. 1838), John. Living St George Hanover Square, born Middlesex.
  10. Elizabeth BULL (no husband), children Elizabeth, Ellen, James (b. 1824), Louisa. Living St Giles Camberwell, no birth place given.
  11. John BULL = Mary, children Frederick, Henry, James (b. 1839), Richard. Living St Leonard’s Shoreditch, born Middlesex.
  12. Samuel BULL = Sarah, children Charles, James (b. 1839), Samuel, William. Living St Pancras, born Middlesex.
  13. Hannah BULL (no husband), children Catherine, Elizabeth, Emily, James (b. 1839), John. Living St Giles Camberwell, born Surrey.
  14. James BULL = Sarah, children James (b. 1841). Also William BULL, probably brother of James the elder. Living in Chelsea, born Middlesex
  15. George BULL = Ann, children Caroline, Emily, James (b. 1821). Living in St George the MArtyr, born Middlesex.
  16. Samuel BULL = Grace, chaildren Elizabeth, James (b. 1821). Living St John the Evangelist, born Middlesex.
  17. James BULL (b. 1821), living in St John the Evangelist.

James BULLs who are old enough to be James senior but without James Honeyman Bull being present.

  1. James BULL (b. 1787) = MA [Mary Ann], children Joseph (b. 1822) and MA [Mary Ann] all born Middlesex. Charles REES living at this address in St Clement Danes.
  2. James BULL (b. 1796) = Ann (b.1801), children George (b. 1833), Mary Ann (b. 1831), William (b. 1826). Also John GUNTER (b. 1821). In St George Hanover Square, born Middlesex.
  3. James BULL (b. 1786) = Mary [Elizabeth LAMBERT] (b. 1791) children Charlotte (b. 1829), Elizabeth (b. 1832), Emma (b. 1819), Georgetta (b. 1820), Hannah (b. 1824), Julia (b. 1823), Mary (b. 1818), Sarah (b. 1825). Living in St James Westminster, born Middlesex.
  4. James BULL (b. 1801) = Alice, no children. James a clerk, living St Mary Whitechapel, born Middlesex.
  5. James BULL (b. 1806), no wife, children William (b. 1826) not born Middlesex, living in St Mary Whitechapel.
  6. James BULL (b. 1797) not born Middlesex = Eliza (b. 1811), child Eliza F (b. 1832). Tavern keeper of the Kings Arms Tavern in Snow Hill, St Sepulchre (see above).
  7. James BULL (b. 1801) = Mary (b. 1806). not born Middlesex, living St Sepulchre. James a shoemaker and Jane a female servant living with them.





The Life of James Honeyman BULL

James Honeyman BULL lived one of the most interesting and enigmatic lives amongst our ancestors. His life included being convicted of embezzlement, moving with a job on the railways before settling in Camberwell. He died in Surrey Lunatic Asylum at the relatively young age of 49 after what appears to be a debilitating stroke.

About Oct 1829 Born, probably in Westminster, the son of James and Mary Ann BULL. The age can be most closely estimated from his baptism which says his age was ‘above 1 1/2 yr’ on his baptism. The dates of birth that one can reconstruct from ages given on official documents are: census 30 Mar 1851 aged 23 (1828), arrest on 1 Sep 1852 aged 24 (1828), marriage 23 Apr 1855 aged 28 (1827), census 2 Apr 1871 aged 42 (1829), death on 23 Apr 1878 aged 46 (1832). Ages in adulthood can often be a year or so out.

1 May 1831 Baptised St. James Piccadilly, with an address given as 6 Eden [Eaton] Lane, Pimlico. His father James BULL was a leather dresser.

Early 1840s Educated at a school (could read and write in later life)

[Cannot be identified confidently on the 1841 census]

Nov 1848 Took up a Job with Thomas FELTHOUSE as a clerk, because the previous incumbent, Joseph PATRICK, absconded with his Master’s money.

30 Mar 1851 On 1851 census at 122 West Orchard, Coventry. lodging with William and John ORAM, and described as a ‘Book Keeper’. We can infer he was working for Thomas FELTHOUSE in Coventry.

1 Sep 1851 As a merchant’s Clerk, he stole £21 from Felthouse in Coventry and then absconded

Early Jun 1852 Arrested in Northampton for the theft of Felthouse’s money and conveyed back to Coventry.

17 Jun 1852  Charged with theft at Warwickshire Assizes. Convicted 30 Jun 1852 and given 12 months hard labour. As a class 3 prisoner, he would receive one meal a day, either soup and bread or potato and bread with 3 oz of meat on Tuesdays, except for Sunday when they got breakfast of a pint of gruel and 6 oz of bread.

Jun 1853 Presumably released from Coventry Goal after having served his sentence. Then re-employed by Thomas FELTHOUSE.

3 Mar 1854 Joseph PATRICK was arrested and brought to court in Coventry for stealing from Thomas FELTHOUSE.

23 Apr 1855 Married Martha Eaves at Coventry registry office, whilst living in West Orchard, Coventry.

18 May 1855 Witness in a paternity case between Thomas FELTHOUSE and one of his maidservants who accused him of being the father of a child. At the enquiry, he was described as being Felthouse’s Merchant’s Clerk.

20 Jan 1856 Thomas FELTHOUSE died apparently leaving James Honeyman BULL out of work in Coventry.

24 Feb 1856 First Child Martha Honeyman BULL born in Radford, near Coventry; the birth is entered as Martha HONEYMAN. James Honeyman BULL described as a Merchant’s Clerk.

22 Apr 1857 Harriett Chilwell Honeyman BULL born at Radford. Harriet CHILWELL was the name of the child’s grandmother.

11 Sep 1858 William James HONEYMAN-BULL born in Shipston on Stour, and James is now described as a Railway Clerk, presumably working for London and North Western Railways which oversaw the line between Coventry and Shipston on Stour.

14 Jun 1860 Mary Ann Honeyman BULL born at Oddington, at which time James Honeyman BULL is described as a Station master.

7 Apr 1861 Not found on the Census. Children Martha is with her grandparents, William and Harriet EAVES.

Late 1861/Early 1862 Moved to Camberwell.

1 Jan 1862 Started working for the London and North Western Railway as a Clerk. Worked from ‘Broad Street’ after 1865 and then ceased employment around 1872.

18 Jun 1862 Clara Louisa Honeyman BULL born at 4 Woodland Terrace, Commercial Road, Camberwell at which time James is described as a ‘Railway Clerk’.

5 Apr 1866 Florence Julia Honeyman BULL born at 4 Woodland Terrace, James Street, Commercial Road, Peckham – undoubtedly the same address as where they lived when Clara was born, but described differently. James is still identified as a ‘Railway Clerk’.

20 Jan 1868 Final child, James Walter Honeyman BULL, born at 4 Woodland Terrace, Cator Street, Camberwell and James the father is still described as a Railway Clerk.

2 Apr 1871 Appears on the 1871 Census living at 130 Cator Street, Camberwell.

1872 Ceased employment with the London and North Western railway.

25 Jun 1874 Wife Martha Honeyman BULL died at 130 Cator Street, Camberwell. By now James is described as a ‘Parcel Deliverer (Carman)’.

29 Dec 1877 Admitted to Surrey Lunatic Asylum after having had a debilitating seizure which had interfered with his speech. Appears subsequently in day-books.

23 Apr 1878 Died at the Surrey Lunatic Asylum.

30 Apr 1878 Buried at Nunhead Cemetery, South London.

James’s death left the family without a head and a form of income. The eldest child, Martha, was 22 when she took over responsibility for the whole family. Within a few weeks, Florence Julia, the youngest daughter, was sent to a parish boarding school, indicating that the parish authorities quickly became involved in overseeing the future of the children. William James joined the Navy and the youngest son, James Walter, joined the army as soon as he was old enough.


The Article on Edward East has attracted the award of the Percy Dawson medal

I’m pleased to be able to report that the Antiquarian Horological Society (AHS) has awarded the 2017 Percy Dawson Medal for our article on Edward East, published in two parts in the September and December issues of Antiquarian Horology. It is awarded annually for what is regarded by the Committee as the best article in Antiquarian Horology.

The award is commemorated by a medal which will be presented later in the year.

Tracing lost ancestors using DNA

A few years ago I decided to try DNA matching to see if I could confirm my family tree. I tried it first with familytreeDNA and then with ancestry. My parents also tested a few years later. The autosomal DNA tests confirmed many of the key relationships that I had inferred from written records. It put me in touch with other descendants of common ancestors and, through them, I was able to expand and enrich my tree. Many of them had written documentation about common ancestors that I did not know about.

The vast majority of my DNA matches are to people whose relationship to me I cannot decipher. Many of them do not post a tree and do not respond to enquiries. But an interested few, when contacted, start a process of examination to try and work out the link. In a few instances, such as one that I will expand upon here, by determining the DNA link, we have worked out further generations of the tree and identified missing ancestors that no amount of serendipitous searching would have discovered. Without DNA matching, we would never have known where to look or what questions to ask. Many of our ancestors emigrated, moved away and reinvented themselves, and DNA is one of the only ways to bridge that gap.

Michael John Anthony SHARMAN and John Anthony SHERMAN

Two of my most unusual ancestors are John SHARMAN and Elizabeth ALLMAN.  John and Elizabeth were both born in England; John in Earl Stonham in Suffolk and Elizabeth in Newark upon Trent. However, they were married on 16 Apr 1826 in the Governor’s Palace in Valetta in Malta, and a year later, on the 12 Jun 1827, their first son, Michael John Anthony SHARMAN was born in Valetta. My own ancestor, Mary Clara SHARMAN was born in Algiers around August 1830, precisely the moment in time that the French Army was attacking the Bey of Algiers. Although I can find no surviving birth or baptism records, it seems that Mary Clara was born into the middle of a war zone. I do not know why my ancestors were in the Mediterranean or what they were doing in a war zone but, by 1835, they were back in the relative safety of Brixton in South London, where their son Robert William SHARMAN was born. The family remained in South London for the rest of their lives where two daughters (Caroline Louisa, 1837; Martha, 1840) and a son (Albert Henry, 1846) were born. In later life John was a gardener, giving no particular clue to the career that sent him abroad.

The family appear on the 1841 census in Clapham. By this time Mary Clara appears as the eldest child: there is no sign of Michael John Anthony Sharman, who, by this time, would have been 13 years old. I assumed that he had died in the confused period between 1827 and 1835 when the family were in Malta and Algiers.

When my DNA matches came through, I found myself matched to someone in the US (Karen) whose family tree was extensive. The link between us was reasonably strong and I reasoned that we must be able to find the link. When my Dad also tested, it turned out the link to Karen was on my Dad’s side, and with the stronger signal, we were able to show that my Dad and Karen had a common match in another person in the US, Jeffrey. Fortunately, Jeffrey and Karen knew that their common link was John Anthony SHERMAN who had come to the US around the late 1840s. He had married Laura C LESLIE on the Wadham Mills, New York, on the 22 Sep 1850 and acquired US citizenship soon afterwards. John Anthony and Laura had had two daughters, with Karen descended from one daughter, and Jeffrey descended from the other. Laura Leslie was born in America from pioneers who had settled much earlier in American history, and hence she could not be the link to me in the UK.

Given that Jeffrey, Karen, my Dad and myself all shared common DNA, we inferred that we were all related through John Anthony Sherman. I looked at my tree and saw the name SHARMAN, but noted that the US connection was a SHERMAN and not SHARMAN. Looking at rough dates, we wondered whether my Michael John Anthony Sharman was Karen and Geoffrey’s John Anthony Sherman. We looked closely at the records for these two individuals. Fortunately, John Anthony Sherman had been a soldier in the American Civil War, and he had left documents related to his pension that gave some biographical details. He gave his parents as John and Elizabeth Sherman, claiming that his father had been a naval officer. He also left a family bible, and in this he had written that he was born in Valetta, Malta on 12 Jun 1827. This matched perfectly with my missing Michael John Anthony Sharman. We therefore concluded that my Michael John Anthony Sharman was the same as John Anthony Sherman in the US.

Nearly 180 years after the events, we were able to infer that Michael John Anthony Sharman joined the Navy as a cabin boy in his early teens, therefore avoiding the British 1841 census. He must have sailed to the US before disembarking in New York and establishing a family. Once in the US, he appears to have reinvented himself, using Sherman rather than Sharman as his name.

Every family tree has people who are unaccounted for. In this case, autosomal DNA was able to provide Karen and Jeffrey with links to the UK that they had sought for in vain for many years. In return, I learned the colourful career of a missing cousin who had joined the Navy, became an American citizen and fought in the American Civil War. This was only possible from the clues provided by DNA genealogy.

Saints and Sinners – The Finches, the Abbot of Colchester and the English Reformation

There are few families that can show that they are related to a saint. A selection of papers I recently found in the National Archives show that our family – the Finches of Redbourn – were related to the Abbot of Colchester, who resisted the English reformation and paid for it with his life. Subsequently, the Abbot was canonised for his support for Catholicism against King Henry.

The Decree Roll of 1552 which contains the ruling in the case of Locke versus Clare

What are the Documents?

The documents are an equity suit – a dispute in court where one party claims redress against another – and the case was heard in late 1552 or early 1553. The case was brought by John LOCKE who was claiming ownership of the manor of Brightlingsea in Essex. The manor had been – prior to the dissolution of the monasteries – part of the lands of the Abbey of St John the Baptist in Colchester. However another man – John CLARE – also had a deed that stated he had ownership of the same land. The Court of Chancery was asked to decide which claim was valid.

The story that the documents outline is as follows. In 1538, Henry VIII was pressing ahead with the break with Rome and the establishment of the Church of England. Although many churchmen of the time acquiesced – however great their personal misgivings – a vociferous few refused to recognise Henry’s authority. Prominent among these was John BECHE, the Abbot of Colchester. He had been a continual thorn in Henry’s side by vigorously opposing the break with Rome. When Henry sent emissaries to demand the keys to the Abbey, John BECHE replied he would give in “but against my will and against my heart for I know by my learning that he cannot take it by right or law; wherefore in my conscience I cannot be content”. As a result, Henry decided to make an example of the troublesome Abbot and towards the end of 1538, it was clear that the game was up. Henry forced the dissolution of the Abbey and seized its lands; John himself was accused of treason for which the penalty was death. However, John BECHE tried one last attempt to foil Henry’s seizure of the Abbey lands. He quickly drew up a series of deeds, selling all the Abbey’s lands at knock-down prices to trusted folk that he felt would return the lands after (as he expected) the break with Rome was reversed. And therefore John BECHE sold the Abbey’s manor of Brightlingsea to ‘his near kinsman’ John FINCH, the son of John FINCH of Redbourn in the Co Herts deceased. But Henry was wise to this ploy and so he retrospectively nullified all deeds actioned by the Abbey that had taken place up to one year prior to dissolution. So as John BECHE sold the Abbey’s lands, he dated the sale one year earlier than that date on which it had actually taken place. This meant that John FINCH of Redbourn held what appeared to be a valid deed for the ownership of the manor of Brightlingsea.

20171129_164008 detail
Detail of the decree roll mentioning ‘the said John FFYNCHE the sonne

It appears that John kept the deed quietly in a safe place and did not draw attention to its existence. In the interim, John BECHE was captured, tried for treason and hanged, drawn and quartered on the 1st Sep 1539. Henry seized the Abbey’s lands and passed the manor of Brightlingsea to a John LOCKE as a ‘pension’, possibly meaning a payment for his involvement in the dissolution of the Abbey.

13 years later, in 1552, John FINCH died intestate and without children. His brother Nicholas (from whom I am descended) inherited the deed and sold it to John CLARE who owned several other manors in the vicinity. It was then that the existence of competing title deeds were recognised. Locke’s grant from Henry appeared valid but so too did Clare’s which predated Henry’s dissolution of the monastery and nominally bore a date prior to the period over which Henry had nullified the Abbey’s land transactions. John LOCKE took John CLARE to court, asking the court of Chancery in London to decide in his favour and outlining the irregular way in which the bond had been drawn up.

The notes made at the time record that the court doubted the validity of Finch’s bond suspicious of the fact that Finch was the Abbot’s ‘near kinsman’. They asked Clare to provide better proof that the date on the grant was valid, which he was unable to do. The court therefore issued a decree (which survives) deciding the case in Locke’s favour. The court also required that Clare’s deed be brought to the court so that it could be destroyed.

How were the Abbot and John Finch related?

We know from other documents that John and Nicholas FINCH were the sons of John Finch of Redbourn. John the father married Elizabeth BECHE about 1505 and their children were born over a period of 20 years. It is almost certain that the Abbot, John BECHE, was closely related to Elizabeth. The youngest son of John and Elizabeth FINCH, Alban, was born as a posthumous child in 1524, after the father John had died (his will is 1524). If Elizabeth BECHE was giving birth to Alban after ~20 years of marriage, she was probably about 40 years old when her youngest child was born and about 20 when she was married. This puts her date of birth to be ~1485.

It is estimated that Abbot John BECHE was about 60 when he was executed in 1539. This puts his date of birth ~1480. We can therefore suppose that John and Elizabeth BECHE were brother and sister, and therefore that John and Nicholas FINCH were the Abbot’s nephews.

Abbot John BECHE’s Legacy

John BECHE’s refusal to give in to Henry was widely respected. His pectoral cross, apparently worn when he was executed, was subsequently revered and is now held at Buckfast Abbey. He was made a Catholic Saint in 1895.


The grave of Frederick, Eliza and Marian Ward

I and my cousins Sandra and Adrian Grater spent some time cleaning up the grave of our ancestors Frederick and Eliza Ward. They are buried with their daughter Marian in the graveyard of St James, Hampton Hill near Twickenham. The grave was overgrown with thorns and brambles, but it took just a few minutes to clean the grave up sufficiently that the inscriptions could be read. The grave is in area B and is located as grave 9B 3.


Sacred to the memory of of Eliza WARD who died Nov 1st 1909 aged 65. And also Frederick Ward, husband of the above, who died Jan 4th 1925 aged 75 years. And Marian Ward who died Dec 2nd 1894 aged 7 years.

Adrian & Sandra at Hampton ii)I and my cousin Sandra, 9th October 2017, at Hampton Hill.


A life in the workhouse – Elizabeth FINCH

Elizabeth Finch is my great-great-great-great-grandmother. She was born on the 20th February 1790 in Roehampton, which was then in Surrey and part of the parish of St Mary’s Putney (nowadays it is in Greater London and a separate parish). Her parents were Thomas Finch, a shoemaker, and Elizabeth nee UMNEY. She was the eldest daughter and had an elder brother John Thomas FINCH born two years earlier. She would become the eldest sister to a further three brothers and three sisters. Her parents, as far as we can tell, remained in Roehampton for all of their lives.

Like many of her era, Elizabeth went ‘into service’ when she was old enough to work. We know that by 1813 she was working for a butcher in East Sheen called Charles PAYNE, in whose household she lived and worked for an annual wage of £7. She first appears on the records in 1815 when she became pregnant. At that time, the father of children to unmarried mothers were sought out by parish officials and coerced into providing for the child. Elizabeth was examined by the overseers of the Poor of Putney on 8th February 1815. In this case, the child was mentioned but no father was given – it is not clear why. The outcome of the examination was that Elizabeth would reside with her parents at Roehampton, and therefore there appears not to have been any suggestion the child would become chargeable to the parish. The child was a boy, probably born in his grandparents house in Roehampton, and was baptised ‘George FINCH’ at St Mary’s Putney on the 14th May 1815, having been born probably in April 1815. Sadly the baby died in December 1815 and was buried in St Mary’s churchyard on the 23rd December.

The Examination of Elizabeth FINCH

This examinant upon her oath saith that she is a singlewoman and that in the month of April in the year 1813 she lived as a yearly servant to Charles PAYNE of East Sheen in the parish of Mortlake in the said County, butcher, under which hiring she served for one year and nine months in the said parish of Mortlake and received the yearly wages of seven pounds after which service she dwelt at home with her father and mother at Roehampton. And the examinant further saith that she is now with child and expects to be delivered almost every day.

Her Mark: Elizabeth X FINCH

Sworn the 16th Day of August 1817                                                  Fred REEVES

                                                                                                                 William PEARSON LLD

Elizabeth fell pregnant again in 1817. On this occasion she was examined by the Overseers of the Poor in both Mortlake and Putney parish on the 16th of August. The entry for Putney parish merely records that her last place of employment was in East Sheen, part of Mortlake parish, hence any costs associated with her unborn child were to be met by Mortlake parish. However the entry also includes the name of the father as “a man named George… is the father, he worked for Mr MARCH a carpenter at Roehampton and has a mill on Wimbledon Common where the said George worked“. The fact that a dispute between Putney and Mortlake broke out indicates that the child was to be chargeable to the parish and that Elizabeth was no longer living with her parents. The circumstances of her leaving here parents are unclear, but Elizabeth had not worked formally since her employment in Charles Payne’s house in 1815 and by 1817 was a resident of Mortlake Workhouse.

The second child was a daughter who was baptised Elizabeth Finch from Mortlake Workhouse on the 18th September 1817. The assignment to the workhouse suggests that the child had been delivered in there. Sadly this child also died as an infant and was buried on the 19th August 1818. The burial does not have an abode and hence it is unclear if Elizabeth was still in Mortlake Workhouse.

Elizabeth appears on the records again in 1824. She was again pregnant with a child, but this time the parish of Putney appears to have been liable. One can infer therefore that Elizabeth had worked within Putney parish since leaving Mortlake workhouse, otherwise this child would also have been chargeable to Mortlake. The father of this child, identified in the examination on the 8th of May 1824, was Henry HIGLEY, a servant of Charles PAYNE in East Sheen. Elizabeth had worked for Charles PAYNE 11 years previously, but she clearly had kept up connections with that household, even if she had not worked there herself. This child was another daughter, who was baptised ‘Eliza’ at Putney on the 8th September 1824. We do not know the fate of this child. No burial corresponds to her birth and she may have lived to adulthood (although the records are sparse). Her place of birth is given as ‘Putney’ but it is not clear if this is the workhouse or a private residence.

Elizabeth fell pregnant for the fourth time in 1830, aged 40. The examination documents for this child are unfortunately lost, but a summary of the content has survived. It gave the child as a boy and the examination took place in August 1830. The father’s name was William ROBERTS of Bedford Court, White Hart Yard, Drury Lane, London and he was sought by the parish officials. The father to the child was never found.

GLRO-P85-MRY1-427 resized

The Summary of the birth of her fourth child in 1830. The Examination was the 7th August 1830 and the father of the child was ‘William ROBERTS of Bedford Court, White Hart Yard, Drury Lane’.

The child, a boy, was born in July 1830 as ‘St George Frederick FINCH’ and baptised at St Mary’s Putney on the 25th July 1830. The examination is dated on the 7th August by which time the note is given ‘child in the workhouse’. In all later documents, this child, my ggg-grandfather, was referred to as ‘George FINCH’. George was probably born in the Putney workhouse building. Elizabeth now appears to have spent all her subsequent life within the workhouse. It may be that she was discharged for short spells (the admission books are all now lost), but the only records we now have of her until her death are within the workhouse system.

In 1834, plans were drawn for the workhouses of Battersea, Clapham, Putney, Streatham, Wandsworth and Tooting to amalgamate into the ‘Wandsworth and Clapham Union’ with a longer term plan to create a single, large workhouse from the several smaller buildings spread across the parishes. In 1836, the new Union was created and one of its first actions was to sell the building that housed Putney workhouse. Elizabeth and 53 other inmates were moved on the 11th August 1836 to Clapham Workhouse. Putney workhouse must have seemed relatively small and personal compared to the much larger institutions in which she would now live her life. In addition to creating much larger workhouses, stricter regimes were created within the building with regulated diets and heavily structured daytime activities. By 1836, George was 6 (if Eliza were still alive, she would have been 12). By now George would have lived separately to his mother with the other pauper boys. Parents were only allowed to mix with their children for a few hours on every Sunday before religious service. A few months after the move to Clapham, Elizabeth was returned back to Putney workhouse with three other inmates to assist with the preparation of the building for sale.


George and Elizabeth were moved on the 22nd December 1836 to Streatham Workhouse as “Elizabeth FINCH aged 51 and her bastard boy George aged 5” (note: there is no mention of Eliza FINCH, if she survived).


In January 1837 a note appears that the Guardians were considering moving Elizabeth FINCH back to Clapham workhouse, but that this was overruled. For the interim, Elizabeth and George were in the same institution, if not the same ward. In early 1837 an outbreak of ‘the itch’ became prevalent among the boys at Streatham Workhouse and those children unaffected were transferred to Tooting Workhouse. It is not clear whether George was moved.

By 1838, the new combined workhouse building on St John’s Hill in Wandsworth was ready. The first inmates were transferred shortly afterwards. A sense of the diet is given by a ‘Bill of Fare’ that was posted giving the diet that could be expected.


By the time of the 1841 Census, Elizabeth and George were in the new building. Elizabeth is shown in women’s ward and George amongst the boys – they are living apart. The new combined workhouse was also accused of mistreatment of the inmates. In 1843, some of the inmates made a complaint. The depositions from one inmate shows that “There are 4 warden misses, 2 women Finch and Keene 2 men Mansell and Wotton. They have an allowance of beer, the allowance of two of them Finch and Keen has been stopped. Keen’s allowance was stopped for going upstairs to get the keys from me to go to the workhouse for hot water. She sits up at night with a woman who has fits. She told me the master stopped her beer in the last week of fortnight the Master has visited frequently the infirmary the 1st 7 weeks duration did not come so often; sometimes he came once a day to, sometimes the Schoolmistress.” By now it can be seen that Elizabeth is working as an orderly within the Workhouse Infirmary. This complaint led to an enquiry by Dr WJ CONNOR, the doctor to the workhouse, which showed that inmates were in some cases living in the same clothes for up to three months and that lice and bodily infections were rife. This was reported in the local press.

By 1844, George would have been 14 years old and the workhouse regulations required pauper children to be apprenticed in a trade at that age. Although the name is not given, in 1836 it is recorded that a suitable master should be recruited to train the elder pauper boys in bootmaking. Since George FINCH was in later life a bootmaker, we can infer that he was trained by this master.

In 1851, Elizabeth is still found within the workhouse but George, now 21, had left and was living in Clapham. George was a journeyman bootmaker and in 1853 he married Mary Clara SHARMAN at St John’s Church, Clapham. He gave his father’s name as ‘George FINCH, bootmaker‘, a fabrication presumably to avoid the embarrassment of admitting that he did not know his father. Elizabeth did not witness the marriage and it may be that she was unable to attend, being an inmate of the workhouse and not strictly at liberty (potentially jeopardising her living in the institution). Since Elizabeth had only seen her son for a few hours every week, it is possible that she and George had little in common. George set up a family in Clapham but, perhaps in recognition of his mother, his first daughter was called Elizabeth. The 1861 Census returns for the workhouse are now lost, but she appears in a national survey of paupers who had been in a workhouse for more than 5 years. By this time she was 71 years old and the document states she had been in the workhouse for 20 years, but it is almost certain that she had been there longer. Elizabeth remained in the workhouse as she grew older. She died in the workhouse infirmary on the 22nd August 1866 and buried a week later (28th August 1866) in a pauper’s grave in Putney.

Elizabeth spent upwards of 50 years in the workhouse system. Her earlier life may have involved relatively short periods, entering and being discharged from the workhouse system, but the latter half of her life was spent entirely as a workhouse inmate. She lived through a period which saw the industrialisation of social care provision and endured some its excesses in the largest workhouse in London. Victorian Workhouses were engineered to be so unpleasant that only those in the most dire of need would subject themselves to it, and in the 1840s, the conscious drive to make the environment unpleasant let to instances of outright cruelty. Elizabeth witnessed (and possibly experienced) some of those excesses. Some, such as Elizabeth appears to have been, were trapped within the system, unable to gain the independence to move out of the workhouse, irrespective of the pressures to leave. Elizabeth’s is not however entirely a negative story. Despite the hardships, Elizabeth brought up a son who was trained sufficiently to leave the workhouse and start in his own career. Although the family were never affluent, subsequent generations avoided the grinding poverty that Elizabeth experienced.


The Elusive Ellen WILEY

I am trying to trace a direct ancestor who is something of a mystery. Ellen WILEY is my ggg grandmother. She married my ggg grandfather Robert WARD in 1839 by licence and from the various Ages she used on the census she must have been born about 1815-1818. They lived in Marfleet in Yorkshire, on the North side of the Humber overlooking Lincolnshire, which was Robert Ward’s parish at the time and where he had been born.

Her earlier roots are the problem. They shouldn’t be. She has coverage on 6 censuses and she has two marriage certificates; the church records prior to formal certificates for the whole county are all complete. But here’s the problem: we have her on 6 censuses each of which has a different place of birth, and she was married twice, and for each she gave a different father’s name. There is no baptism for an Ellen W(H)ILEY at any of the places she identified as being her parish of origin.  Her birth places have some consistency in that some are around Friskney and Wainfleet, where WILEY families lived. On her first marriage, she claimed her father was Edward WILEY, but no-one of that name is mentioned at all – he seems to be a red herring. But in her second marriage, she said her father was William WILEY, and there is a William in Friskney.

What we know:
1815-1818 Ellen WILEY born
9 Jan 1839 Ellen WILEY married Robert WARD in Marfleet by licence, father named as Edward WILEY
1841 census birthplace Yorkshire age 20
1851 census birthplace Lincs Foston (sic meant to be Boston?) age 33
1861 census birthplace Lincs Rangle (Wrangle?) age 43
1871 census birthplace Lincs Wainflit (Wainfleet?) age 53
1881 census birthplace Yorks Preston aged 66
23 Apr 1888 Ellen WARD married Edward HUNTER, father named as William WILEY aged 71
1891 census birthplace Lincs Boston age 74
Died 1891 Marfleet
Robert and Ellen used several names not present in earlier generations of the ward family and some of these might be indicative of names from Ellen‘s family. Having said that Robert’s brothers used unusual names without a precedent, including the unique name ‘Energy’ for one of their sons.
Her children were:
William, Arthur, Mary Tweed, Jesse, Frederick, James, Sarah Jane, Phoebe, Charles.
The Ward family tree uses and would account for the choice of:
William, Mary, Jane, Robert, Elizabeth, Joseph, Peter. Tweed was Robert’s mother’s maiden name.
Leaving potentially
Jesse, Frederick, James, Sarah, Phoebe and Charles as indicative of names in Ellen‘s family.
Why would someone not know where they were born, or change their father’s name? We might imagine that a registrar might enter the father’s name incorrectly, and neither Robert nor Ellen could read so they might not have known the name of Ellen‘s father was mistaken. Ellen might have been born to wandering labourers who moved to the area for summer work and then back to their home parish later, and Ellen just knew that she was born somewhere in that part of Lincolnshire.

Let me hazard a hypothesis. I wonder whether my Ellen WILEY is the Elizabeth WHILEY baptised in Friskney in 1818. She was the daughter of William WHILEY and Betsy, William was an Innkeeper who hanged himself in 1838, a scandal which at the time might have been widely reported. When getting married just a matter of months later, she did not want to be associated with the event, so she fabricated a different father’s name for the certificate. She may have even called herself my a new name, Ellen not Elizabeth, although she might be called Ellie either way. When asked her place of birth on the census, she may not have wished to be associated with that area. It was a poor area, and Robert Ward was a professional upwardly mobile working man in a prosperous area along the Humber! Perhaps she did not want the neighbours to know she was the daughter of an alcoholic from a rough part of rural Lincs.

This might explain the extraordinary range of places of birth, ages and fathers names. One way we might test this hypothesis is via DNA although this is at the range of the resolution. I’d be interested to hear from anyone who is descended from the WHILEY family of Friskney to see if we can find a DNA match.