Fisherford in the 1841 census

 

Fisherford: Black Burn

© Copyright Iain Macaulay and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence

 

Following on from the last post, and in order to help identify the exact location of the Robb properties in Fisherford, I’ve been examining the 19th century census records for the village. In the next few posts I’ll be listing the inhabitants of Fisherford as recorded in the census, starting with 1841.

In the 1841 census, the entries for Fisherford are preceded by those for properties in Overhill and Blackford. The first property mentioned in Fisherford is for the family of George Robb (son of James Robb, younger brother of my 3 x great grandfather Charles), as follows:

George Robb, 35, Slater

Isobel Robb, 35,

John Robb, 5

Alexr  Robb, 3

Jannet Robb, 11

Hellen Robb, 9

Isobel Robb, 1

This is followed by the property belonging to farmer Samuel Stephen and his family, described as being ‘over Fisherford’. Then the properties in Fisherford itself resume as follows (I think I’ve got the divisions between properties / households right):

Charles Booth, 45, Farmer

Margaret Booth, 45

Barbara Booth, 15,

Charles Booth, 15

Helen Booth, 12,

James Booth, 11

Christian Booth, 10

Mary Booth, 8

George Booth, 5

……

John Rennie, 20, agricultural labourer

Forbes Rennie, 15, agricultural labourer

……

Margaret Livingston, 5

Ann Leonard (?), 45

The census then lists properties in Middletown, Mains of  Blackford, Redhill, Mill of Blackford, and Redhill again, before returning to Fisherford to include the household of George Robb’s father James:

James Robb, 70, Crofter

Elizabeth Robb, 55

Elizabeth Robb, 10

After this, the census lists properties in East Overhill, Barnyard of Blackford and Westfield.

What can we deduce from this? Firstly, that (frustratingly) the census clerks did not always attach names to farms or crofts. Secondly, there seems to be no systematic order in the listing of properties in the census. One suspects that clerks listed households in the order in which they visited them and (as will be seen when comparing later censuses) this differed from one census to another. This makes it difficult to draw conclusions about precise geographical locations, for example within a village, from the order in which properties are mentioned. However, the fact that James Robb’s croft is listed after properties in Redhill and Blackford, and separately from those of his son and the Booth family, might reflect the fact that it was some way away from these properties (according to the map featured in my last post, the Fisherford crofts were to the south of the main village, which may have been the location for the Booth farm and George Robb’s house).

Perhaps the most important conclusion from examining the 1841 census record in this way, is that the number of properties in Fisherford was actually quite small. Only farmer Charles Booth and crofter James Robb appear to have been tenants or sub tenants of agricutural properties. At this stage, James’ son George does not appear to have farmed any land: as we’ll see, this would change by the time of the next census.

The Bowmans and the Larkes

My great grandfather Charles Edward Robb married Louisa Bowman on 16^th December 1877 at St. Luke’s church, Victoria Docks. He was 26 and she was 21. I’ve written about the Bowmans before, but now that more London parish records are available at Ancestry, I’ve been able to fill in some of the gaps in the story of my great grandmother’s family.

Louisa Bowman was born on 29^th September 1856 and was christened on 15^th June 1863 at St. Matthews church Pell Street in the parish of St. George in the East, as part of a mass family baptism that also included her sisters Mary Ann and Charlotte and her brother John, as well as her cousins Mary Ann and Sophia. The address given for Louisa and her siblings was 15 Pell Street, a road running north to south from Cable Street to Ratcliffe Highway, between Wellclose Square to the west and Princes Square to the east.

Ratcliffe Highway

Princes Square

Louisa was the daughter of John Bowman, an umbrella (frame) maker, and Elizabeth Jane Larke, who were married on 2^nd November 1851 at St. Philip’s church, Bethnal Green. At the time of their marriage John was living at 2 Somerset Court and Elizabeth at 39 Pell Street.

The Bowmans

John Bowman was born on 19^th December 1828 and baptised at St. Mary’s, Stratford-le-Bow on 11^th February 1829. The family address is given simply as ‘Bow’. John’s father was Robert Bowman, a labourer, and his mother was Caroline Reed.  Robert Bowman was born in about 1802 in Middlesex, but so far I’ve been unable to find out anything about his family. Caroline Reed was born in Stepney in about 1798, but beyond that her origins are as obscure as her husband’s. The couple married on 6^th January 1828 at St. Mary’s, Whitechapel.

John was their first child, their other children being Robert (born 1832), Joseph (1836), Charlotte (1838) and Mary (1840). The family seems to have moved around the London area: Robert junior was christened in the parish of St. Saviour’s, Southwark (address given as Pleasant Row), Joseph at All Saints, Edmonton (Barrowfield Lane), and Charlotte and Mary (or Maria) in St. Botolph’s, Aldgate (8 Harrow Alley).

At the time of the 1841 census the Bowmans were living at 4 Harrow Alley. This narrow street ran south from Aldgate High Street, close to the point where it meets Whitechapel High Street. It was also known in the 19^th century as Blood Alley, because of the number of slaughterhouses located there.

Aldgate in Horwood’s 1792 map: Harrow Alley in bottom right hand corner

Robert Bowman senior died in January 1842, age 40. His son John was 13 years old. The next record we have for John is ten years later, in the 1851 census, when he was still living with his widowed mother Caroline, a charwoman, though the family address was now 3 Somerset Court, Aldgate (John would also give No. 3 as his address when he married in 1851), which I assume was close to Somerset Street, a little to the east of Harrow Alley. John, 22, worked as an umbrella frame maker, an occupation he would pursue for most of the rest of his life. Also still at home were Robert junior, 18, a light porter; Joseph, 15, an errand boy; and Charlotte, 13. I assume that Mary/Maria, born in 1839, did not survive.

In 1861 John’s mother Caroline, now 64, was living in Little Somerset Street (another name for Somerset Court?), with her unmarried son Robert, 27, a painter. By this date Joseph, a packing case maker, had married Elizabeth and was living at 4 Thomas Place, close to Pell Street. They had two children: Joseph, 4, and Sophia, 2 (the latter, with her sister Mary Ann, would be christened in 1863 at the group baptism ceremony mentioned above). I’ve yet to find any record of Charlotte Bowman after 1851.

In 1871 Caroline Bowman was living with her son Joseph and his family in Crown Place, Mile End Old Town. She died there four years later.

The Larkes

Louisa Bowman’s mother, Elizabeth Jane Larke, was born on 14^th May 1831 but not christened until 17^th February 1833, at the church of St. John in Wapping. She was the daughter of Charles Larke, a labourer, and his wife Mary. It’s likely that the family was living at the address in Neptune Street where they could be found 7 years later, in the 1841 census.

Neptune Street, which was only just in Wapping, ran south from Wellclose Square to the Ratcliffe Highway.

A section from  Horwood’s 1792 map, showing Neptune Street running south from Wellclose Square, and Pell Street just visible to bottom left of Princes Square

According to the excellent website of St George’s in the East, there was a notorious prison in the street:

The prison in Neptune Street was commonly known as the ‘Sly House’, because felons who entered it left by a subterranean passage to the Tower and the docks, from which the convict ship Success left. When it closed and the King’s Arms public house took over the site, the landlord would open the cells, with their heavily-bolted doors, grilles, plank beds, fetters and straitjackets, to visitors.

Other sources are more sceptical, and it seems more likely that the prison was mainly used for debtors, sent there from the Court House in the same street. The street no longer exists, with today’s Wellclose Street standing in its place.

We know little of Elizabeth’s father Charles Larke, beyond the fact that he died in 1840.  As for Mary, we know from later census records that she was born in Chard, Somerset, though others give her place of birth as Dorset. Although I’ve yet to find any record of their marriage, Charles probably married Mary in about 1823, since their first child John Thomas was born around 1824 (according to his marriage certificate).  In fact, he is almost certainly the John Thomas Trawin Larke, born to Charles and Mary Larke on 14^th September 1824 and baptised on 3^rd October at the parish church of St. Pancras. His parents were said to be living in Ashby Street at the time, and Charles was working as a labourer. The additional middle name ‘Trawin’ may give us a clue as to Mary’s maiden name, or alternatively it could be Charles’ mother’s maiden name (there were a number of Trawins living in Devon at the time, but I’ve yet to find a Somerset link).

Another older brother, Charles Simeon Larke, was born on 31^st May 1829 and baptised at St John’s Wapping, the family address being given as Neptune Street.  It’s intriguing that Charles senior’s occupation has changed in the intervening five years from labourer to clerk. Of even greater interest is the possibility that Charles Simeon Larke was baptised twice. There’s a record in Pallot’s index, and also in the parish records, asserting that a Charles Simeon Larke, son of Charles and Mary Larke of Ashby Street, was baptised at St. Pancras in 1826. Of course, the simpler explanation might be that the first Charles Simeon died in infancy, and the next son to come along was given the same name.

Elizabeth also had a younger sister, Louisa, born in about 1834, but so far I’ve been unable to find any record of her birth.

The 1841 census finds the widowed Mary Larke, 35, living in Neptune Street with her four children. John, 15, is the only one working: his occupation is virtually illegible, though I imagined for a while that it included the word ‘umbrella’, thus providing a possible clue as to how his sister Elizabeth met her future husband.

At some point in the next ten years, the Larkes moved to 39 Pell Street, which was the address given by Elizabeth when she married John Bowman in 1851, and also by her brother John Thomas when he married Elizabeth Neighbour in 1857.  The 1851 census has 49 year old widowed laundress Mary living at what looks like No. 2 Court Pell Street, with her son John, 24, a labourer, and her daughter Jane, 19 (I’m assuming this is Elizabeth Jane, and that she used her two Christian names interchangeably). Interestingly, the latter is said to be working as a parasol maker: another clue as to how she might have met her umbrella-maker husband John Bowman.

In 1861, Mary was living at 15 Pell Street with her daughter Elizabeth, son-in-law John Bowman (they were working, presumably together, as an umbrella coverer and umbrella frame maker), and her four grandchildren (though they were classed as two separate households within the same building). By now, Mary was working as a confectioner, so perhaps No. 15 Street was a sweet shop. In 1871, when she was 69, Mary was still living with the Bowmans (now at 29 Pell Street) and was described as a ‘small shop keeper’. Similarly in 1881, when she was 79 and still working a ‘shopkeeper (sweets)’.  There’s a record of a ‘Mary Larks’ dying in the parish in 1883 that looks like a match: she is certainly not mentioned in the 1891 census.

In 1861 John Thomas Larke could be found living in Deal Street, Stepney, with his wife Elizabeth and their sons Robert and John, and working as a police constable.  I haven’t yet found them in the 1871 census, but in 1881, John, described as a labourer, and Elizabeth, were living in Saxon Road, and in 1891 John, by now retired, and Elizabeth were in Alfred Street, Lower Holloway. John died in Islington in 1901, at the age of 77.

A Charles Simeon Larke turns up in the electoral roll of Wellington, New Zealand, for 1865-6, living in Murphies Street. I can find no record of what happened to their younger sister Louisa.

The children of John Bowman and Elizabeth Larke

Before Louisa, John and Elizabeth had another daughter, Caroline Jane, born in December 1853: at the time of her baptism the following February the family was living at 19 Christian Street, not far from Pell Street. Louisa’s younger siblings were John (born 1859), Mary Ann (1860), Elizabeth (1865), Joseph Robert (1869), William Charles (1871) and Charlotte Emma (1874). All of these were born at 29 Pell Street.

John Bowman worked as an umbrella frame maker for most of his life, though in 1891, when he was 62, he was employed as a light porter. In 1901, when he and Elizabeth were living alone at 29 Pell Street, the 72 year old John was described as a packer of furniture. John Bowman died in 1906 at the age of 77. Elizabeth died in 1910, age 79.

Francis Place at 29 Charing Cross

In my earlier post about my 3 x great grandparents’ home at 29 Charing Cross, I made the mistake of assuming that the Francis Place living nearby at No. 16 in 1841 was the famous ‘radical tailor of Charing Cross’. In fact it was his son, also Francis, who took over the family business when Francis senior retired in 1817.

I came across this information while reading Place’s autobiography, where I also made the astonishing discovery that the tailor’s first shop in Charing Cross was actually at No. 29 – the very building where my ancestors would be living at the time of the 1841 census. On 8^th April 1799 Place went into business with Richard Wild, and they set up shop together at No. 29. Place only moved out, and took up residence further up the street at No. 16, in 1801, when his partnership with Wild ended acrimoniously.

As well as being a key document of the radical and working-class political movements of the late 18^th and early 19^th centuries, The Autobiography of Francis Place offers a fascinating insight into life in London – and especially Charing Cross – during this period. As someone with a keen interest in the history and literature of the period, I’m intrigued to think that my 3 x great grandparents’ home once served as a meeting-place for some of the key figures of the London Corresponding Society.

James Gillray’s depiction of a London Corresponding Society meeting at Spa Fields, 1795

In Chapter 11 of his autobiography, Place describes at length how the business arrangement with Richard Wild came about, and their search for suitable premises (I have left Place’s spelling and punctuation unchanged):

Having thus satisfied ourselves that we could raise forty pounds, we went in search of a house towards the west, and having seen several we at length found one, No. 29 Charing Cross which just the thing for us, if we could obtain possession of it. The rent was only fifty pounds a year, but for the lease, fixtures, and conveyance of the Lease eighty four pounds were demanded, the house had a good front and needed only outside painting. The rent was very low the house was small, it was rated low in the Parish Books, but how to raise the Eighty four pounds was a question not easily solved. Borrowing was the only chance we had, so we set to work at it, Wild amongst his  acquaintances I amongst mine.

Once the two men had managed to obtain sufficient credit, they moved into the house in Charing Cross and opened the shop:

My furniture consisted of very few articles, and excepting two or three pieces were of a very mean description. As we were going into a respectable neighbourhood, as the Shop had been nicely painted, and our names put along the front in large gilt letters, so as to have the appearance of means to do business in good stile; as the goods we had purchased would enable us to make a handsome display in the windows we were desirous to conceal the proofs of our poverty which the furniture would have given if exposed by day light, A small cart was therefore hired, the goods were packed in convenient pieces and at dusk were put into the cart. My Brother, Wilds Brother Richard Hayward, myself and Wild were all there and in a few minutes the goods were carried into the shop and we were in actual possession of a house and a shewey shop almost to our own surprise, in which I anticipated great success my wife great fears for the result.

The house was in excellent condition but very dirty, so on the next Sunday, Wild his brother, myself and my wife all set to work early in the morning and scowerd it from the top to the bottom, as well the wainscot as the floors, and finished by whitewashing the Kitchen ceiling.

Thus for the first time in our lives, or rather I should perhaps say since we were married I and my wife enjoyed a truly comfortable residence in which we had rooms enough intirely to separate our domestic concerns, and get rid of the many inconveniences which had hitherto annoyed us.

Up to the time that I collected the money due to me from my customers to take the house I never had been at any time since my birth in possession of five pounds which I could fairly call my own.

When we got into the house at Charing Cross we had but one shilling and tenpence among us all, but we had a well digested plan to obtain and carry on business, we had health and knowledge, abstemious habits great industry, a shewy shop a good stock of fashionable goods and a determination to succeed let what would happen.

The Robb family at Charing Cross

This photograph of Whitehall from Trafalgar Square, taken by M. de St. Croix in 1839, is probably the earliest surviving photograph of London, and certainly one of the first photographs taken in England. As Gavin Stamp writes, in his marvelous book The Changing Metropolis: earliest photographs of London 1839-79, the image is ‘hauntingly and tantalizingly beautiful’. He adds:

The calm beauty of the street is clear, as are the details of the shops and houses. All is recorded with tantalizing precision. All is so real that, Alice-like, one is tempted to enter the picture.

Recently, the tantalizing quality of this image has intensified for me, as I’ve come to realise that the photograph may include the house where my great-great-great-grandparents lived. Not only that, but the photograph was taken when they were actually living there. Indeed, they may have been inside one of those buildings while the picture was being taken. They might even have been captured walking in the street, had not the long exposure meant that most moving objects were excluded from the final image.

My 3 x great grandparents, Charles Edward Stuart Robb and Margaret Ricketts Monteith, are to be found in the 1841 census living at Charing Cross, in the parish of St. Martin in the Fields. Charles, 60, was working as a clerk; Margaret was 55. Both were recorded as having been born in Scotland. Living with them were their sons George William and William (my great-great grandfather). Both were working as clerks and both were said to be 25 (though the ages given in the 1841 census were notoriously inaccurate: in fact, George was 30 and William 28).

However, the family probably moved to London from Malton, Yorkshire (where they had arrived via Glasgow, Aberdeen, Alloa, Kilmarnock, Whitby and Richmond) some time before 1841. William married Fanny Seager in London in 1836, so it’s likely that the Robbs were in London by the early 1830s at the latest. The last date we have for them in Malton is 1823, when Charles is listed in the local trade directory as an ‘accountant and engraver’.

Until recently, I’ve been unclear as to the exact location of my ancestors’ home in Charing Cross. A combination of factors hindered me, including the fact that the area has changed so much in the intervening two centuries, particularly following the construction of Trafalgar Square (completed in 1845), and the fact that ‘Charing Cross’ seems to have included a number of blocks of buildings ranged around the statue of Charles I that we see in the photo above. But the greatest frustration was the failure of the census clerk to include house numbers, making it difficult to relate addresses to buildings on contemporary maps.

Then I had a couple of breakthroughs. Researching the history of the area, and looking in particular at old maps and images, I realised that Charing Cross in the early 19th century included the northern end of what we now know as Whitehall. Then I discovered that some of the shops visible in early photographs of this part of Charing Cross were mentioned in the 1841 census. Most notably, Coles the truss maker stands out on the corner of the street, and William Coles, 58, is recorded as occupying the third address on the list of households in Charing Cross in the 1841 census. What’s more, by the time of the 1851 census, the clerk had remembered to add building numbers, so that we find Coles at No.3.

Here’s a map of the area in 1833:

The block where the Robbs lived was at the south-eastern corner of the square, running down the right-hand side of the street as far as Whitehall Place. In other words, the group of buildings to the left of the photograph at the top of this post, behind the statue. In the 1851 census the numbers in this block ran north to south from 1 to 35. As the photo suggests, this block was a mixture of shops, inns and private dwellings. Indeed, the dwellings may have been above the shops: the census records are unclear on this point.

Next, I made two lists. The first was of all the households in this district in the 1841 census, the second a parallel list for the 1851 census, the difference being that the latter included house/shop numbers. I then looked to see if any of the same names recurred. Despite a high degree of mobility in the local population, there were also some continuities. I’ve already mentioned Coles the truss-maker. Other residents from 1841 who were still in the street ten years later included Charles Prater the army clothier at No. 2, William Jolley the glover at No.7, Richard Morse the watchmaker at No. 30, Johnston the confectioner at No. 10, and Stubbing the butcher at No. 17. Closer to the Robb household there was Walter Oram the baker at No.27. At No. 28 in 1841 was licensed victualler Emily Jarvis. From my historical reading I knew that this was the site of the King’s Arms, so I assume it was still an inn in 1851. In fact, we find another victualler, John Wiltshere, living next to Walter Oram at that date.  The Robbs’ next door neighbour, to the north, in 1841 was one Matthew Cholerton, 20, a tobacconist. Since No.31 would be occupied in 1851 by tobacconist James Langstein, I wonder if this is the same shop, which would mean that the Robbs lived at No. 32. In 1851, there are 4 households beyond the tobacconists (Nos. 32-35). In 1841 there were 6: to the south of the Robbs were a 15 year old servant, Ann Marks (was she their servant?), pensioner George Atkins, bookseller Francis Pinkney, Catherine Powell, a lady of independent means, tea dealer Fred Sparrow, and manservant Charles Pratt. All of these were gone from the street by 1851.

Horwood’s map from the 1790s includes building numbers. They aren’t easily readable in the reproduction below, but the numbers from 30 to 35 are the last segment before the entrance to Great Scotland Yard, ending almost opposite the Admiralty.

Studying the census records, in tandem with my exploration of the history of the area, I realised that my 3 x great grandparents had at least one famous neighbour. In 1841 No. 16 was occupied by Francis Place, the radical tailor of Charing Cross, who was active in the London Corresponding Society in the 1790s, and who opened his shop in the street in 1799. Next door to Place and his family in 1841, at No. 15, was the bookseller William Hamilton Reid, another well-known radical of the ’90s. If they had met, I’m not sure that Francis Place and my 3 x great grandfather would have got on. While the former was campaigning for radical social and political reform in the 1790s, Charles Robb’s elder brother, Rev. William Robb, was writing patriotic poems and publishing them in the Anti-Jacobin Review.

It’s likely, then, that the building where my ancestors lived is just visible in the photograph at the top of this post: perhaps it’s one of those distant buildings blurred by sunlight or by over-exposure of the daguerrotype. I like to imagine my great-great-great grandfather and his sons, walking past the statue of Charles I on their way to work, or crossing the road to catch one of the horse-drawn cabs visible in the picture.

I’m not sure when the Robbs moved from Charing Cross. My 3 x great grandmother died there in 1843. George William was living in nearby Villiers Street when he died in 1847, and William and his wife and family lived at various addresses in the Covent Garden area. By 1851, the widowed Charles Robb was living in Tenison Street, Lambeth, where he would died two years later.

Update

Since writing this post yesterday, I’ve gone back and checked through the birth, marriage and death certificates for members of the Robb family at around this time. I don’t know how I missed it before, but the death certificate for my great-great-great grandmother, Margaret Ricketts Monteith, clearly states that she died at 29 Charing Cross on 1st December 1843. This means that the family almost certainly lived next door to the King’s Arms, which was at No. 28. I’m still unclear about their connection to Matthew Cholerton, tobacconist, and Ann Marks, servant, who are listed before and after the Robbs in the census. Were these separate households, or were some of them lodging with the  others?

As described in John Barrell’s very useful book, The spirit of despotism: invasions of privacy in the 1790s, the Kings’ Arms was the catalyst for a ‘crimp riot’ in July 1795, that spread to Whitehall and Downing Street. The pub was (probably mistakenly) suspected of being a ‘crimping house’, where men were got drunk and bamboozled into joining the military. According to Barrell’s labelling of the Horwood map, the King’s Arms at No. 28 Charing Cross stood immediately behind No. 29, connected by an alley leading through to Craig’s Court.

By the time of the 1851 census, No. 29 was occupied by George Huxtable, a tailor master; No. 30 by John William Parker, a publisher; and No. 31 by James Langstein, tobacconist.

The death of Constance Ruth Robb

In an earlier post I mentioned the curious story of Constance Ruth Robb (1918 – 2004), the daughter of Alexander George Robb and Elizabeth Jane Sherwood, who was apparently given up for adoption. I’ve seen a copy of Constance’s death certificate, but unfortunately it doesn’t shed much light on her life. She died on 20th December 2004 at the Rosary Nursing Home, Mayfield Drive, Durleigh in Somerset. The causes of death were myocardial infarction and ischaemic heart disease, and secondarily, dementia. The informant, present at the death, was Carolyn Gladys Taylor who was (and still is, apparently) the manager of the home.

James Robb of Fisherford in the Auchterless kirk session records

The Auchterless kirk session minutes for 10th March 1799 read as follows:

After sermon session met and constitute. Compeared James Robb in Fisherford confessing himself guilty of antenuptial fornication with Elizabeth Robb, an unmarried woman who was his servant the preceding half year, and craving to be absolved. This session agreed to. He was accordingly rebuked, fined and dismissed from discipline. Session closed.

Presumably this is the James Robb, son of George Robb and brother of my 3 x great grandfather Charles, who would inherit the Fisherford property on the death of Rev. William Robb in 1830. I don’t know of any other James Robb living in Fisherford at this time. James was born in 1772, and would have been almost 27 at the time of this appearance before the kirk session.

The first curious thing about this account is that ‘our’ James married Christian Harper in the previous year – 1798. He would marry an Elizabeth – surname Manson – in 1822, after Christian’s death. Therefore ‘antenuptial’ seems an odd term to use, unless it meant sex outside as well as before marriage. The second curious thing is the name of his partner in adultery, Elizabeth Robb. I’m intrigued to know who this was, and whether she was any relation to James. The only person I can find in the contemporary records, for now, is the Elizabeth Robb born in 1761 to another James Robb, husband of Barbara Raeburn. If my speculations about the family are correct, then this Elizabeth would have been ‘our’ James’ first cousin, though it’s odd this isn’t mentioned in the session minutes.

George Robb in the Auchterless kirk session records: Part 2

Following on from the last post:

George Robb’s second appearance before the Auchterless kirk session occurred in 1751. Here’s an extract from the session minutes of 19th May of that year (apologies for my failure to read many of the words in these accounts – the writing is incredibly small and difficult to interpret):

The minister represented to the session that some young people of this parish had gone last sabbath to the church of Fyvie with a burial (?) and had given scandal by spending the afternoon in Lewes of Fyvie in drinking and that particularly two of them George Rob in Mains of Badenscoth and William Durno  in Loggie Newtown had quarrelled in their way home and had beat one another and that he had ordered the said George Rob and William Durno to be called to this meeting of session. The session ordered them to be called and they being called compeared George Rob being interrogate if he had been in Lewes of Fyvie drinking last Sabbath in the afternoon, and if he and William Durno had quarrelled in their way home and beat one another confessed that he had spent the greatest  part of the afternoon in Lewes of Fyvie in drinking and confessed that he was drunk, for which he said that he humbly begged God’s pardon and declared that he was resolved henceforth never to drink in a charge (?) house on the sabbath day and being interrogate if he and William Durno had quarrelled and beat one another in their way home declared that he did not rememember being drunk or whether he had [? illegible] any difference with [?illegible] or whether he had struck William Durno or received any strokes (?) from him. William Durno being interrogate confessed that he went into Lewes of Fyvie with George Rob and several others and came home with him in the evening but was not drunk, and that George Rob without the least provocation, given up on his part, did strike him with his staff once and again. But that he did not so much as offer to resist the [?illegible] and that he offered to prove by witnesses that were in their [?illegible] both in Lewes and on their way home.  On a [?illegible] he had [?illegible] the officer to summoned for the [?illegible] who were standing without and whom he entreated the session would call in and examine anent the matter. Upon which he and George Rob were interrogate and so they were that were in their company at the time they were in Lewes and that came home to them and they gave account of the following [?illegible] namelt George Thomson in Little Milne, Alexander Durno in Newton, James Rob in Mickle Bogs, John Raeburn and John Cowie there and John Hall younger in Loggie Newton, beside two or three young people of the parish of Fyvie. The session considering that not only George Rob and William Durno had given great scandal by drinking the whole sabbath afternoon in a publick house and quarelling by the way in their coming home but als  all that were in company with them and that George Rob in generously confessing himself to have been so drunk that he does not remember what happened [?illegible] in their way home is a good evidence to the session that the rest [? illegible] had been all the time in company with him  could not be sober. Therefore the session found them all liable to censure and refers to the Presbytery to  meet at Turiff on Wednesday next for their directions how to proceed against them and order their clerk to give the minister an extract of the affair to be be laid before the Presbytery. Session closed with prayer.

Then in the minutes for 3rd June we read:

After sermon session met and constitute. The minister acquainted the session that according to their appointment he had laid the case of George Rob Wiliam Durno &c before the Presbytery and that they had advised that session only concern them before the session and rebuke them sharply for their breach of sabbath and the officer is appointed to commend them for that effect to the session next sabbath. Session ended with prayer.

And again on 9th June:

After sermon session met and constitute George and James Rob William Durno Alexander Durno John Raeburn George Thomson John Cowie [?illegible] being called compeared only George Rob William Durno Alexander Durno and John Raeburn who humbly confessed their sins for sabbath breaking in spending the afternoon of the Sunday in drinking in Lewes of Fyvie. But all the rest except George Rob maintained that they were no ways drunk or gave any offence in their way home. They were sharply rebuked and seriously exhorted to a more Christian and circumspect behaviour for the time to come and particularly George Rob for his scandalous and offensive behaviour in this matter and on a former occasion. The officer appointed to summoned George Thomson John Hall John Cowie Junior and James Rob to the session against sabbath next pro 2do [= for the second time]. Session closed in prayer.

On 16th June the minutes include the following:

After sermon session met and constitute George Thomson James Rob John Cowie Junior John Hall Junior being called and not compearing the officer was appointed to summoned them pro 3do [= for a third time] at sabbath next.

Then on 23rd June:

After sermon session met and constitute the officer being asked if he had called [?] George Thomson &c to this meeting of session declared that he had been at their dwelling places but that he had not personally [?illegible] handed any of them their [?illegible] delay for the meeting of them [?illegible] should have occasion to speak with them in private.

And that is the last we hear of the matter.

In George Robb’s defence, at least he confessed to being so drunk that he could not remember how he had behaved, whereas the others maintained their innocence to the last. Little good it did him: George was singled out for particular rebuke, with a ‘former occasion’ being brought up (was this the affair with Margaret Tap, or another episode of drunkenness, sabbath-breaking and violence?) Once again, it’s hard to reconcile this picture of George Robb with the father of such ‘respectable’ sons. However, these records do have overtones of  the descriptions of George’s great-grandson, James, the Auchterless murderer, who (it will be remembered) was an object of particular fear for his unfortunate victim, even before the fateful day on which he broke into her cottage.

George Robb in the Auchterless kirk session records: Part 1

Following on from the last two posts, in this post and the next I’ll be reproducing extracts from the Auchterless kirk session minutes that mention George Robb (or Rob).  He was summoned on two separate occasions – in 1749 and 1751 – and, even allowing for the puritanical values of the time, the offences for which he was rebuked don’t present him in a very positive light.

We can’t be absolutely sure that the person referred to in these records is my 4 x great grandfather, but the evidence seems to point in that direction. Firstly, there appears to be only one George Robb mentioned in the Old Parish Registers for Auchterless for this period (and the minutes themselves don’t suggest a need to distinguish between different George Robbs). Secondly, the association with Mains of Badenscoth links the George mentioned here to the Robb family to which ‘our’ George is linked in the OPRs. Thirdly, the accounts in the kirk session records have this George associating with people, such as James Robb, who we know are related or otherwise connected to ‘our’ George Robb.

Finally, the dates appear to match. We do not know my 4 x great grandfather’s birth date: in fact, the first reference to him in the OPRs is when he marries Jean Syme in 1762. His children were born between 1763 (William) and 1779 (Charles, my 3 x great grandfather), and he lived variously at Logie Newton, Bruckhills and Fisherford. We know from later references in the records of his offspring that George was a flesher by occupation. If this is indeed the same George Robb, then these kirk session minutes are now the earliest record we have of him.

As you will see, on the second occasion that George Robb appeared before the kirk session, in 1751, he is named as one of a party of ‘young people’ of the parish, which implies that he was in his teens or early twenties at the time. This would suggest that he was born some time around 1730, and that he married at a comparatively late age – perhaps in his early thirties.

As always, historical records raise as many questions as they answer. What was George Robb doing between 1751 and 1762, and would knowing this explain why he married late? Were there further instances of anti-social behaviour, and did these get him into even deeper trouble, perhaps leading to a court appearance and imprisonment (as almost happened following of one of these rebukes from the kirk), and might this explain his delayed marriage? What about the family tradition that George was ‘involved’ in the ’45: is this incompatible with his later submission to Presbyterian discipline, and/or does it somehow explain his rebellious behaviour? And finally, how do we reconcile the George Robb who is here accused of slander, drunkenness and brawling, with the man whose sons became variously a merchant, clergyman and legal clerk, the last of whom (my 3 x great grandfather) confidently described himself to the census recorder as a ‘gent’? It will take further research, and perhaps the discovery of other as-yet-unknown records, to answer these questions.

The first reference to George Robb in the kirk records occurs on 20th July 1749, when a certain Margaret Tap appears before the session:

Also compeared Margaret Tap in Bruckhills and gave in a complaint upon George Rob in Mains of Badenscoth that he had defamed her by declaring to several persons that he had been living in a pact (?) of uncleanness with her for some time past, which she absolutely refused and earnestly begged the session would inquire  into this affair, and in case the said George Rob shall be found to have defamed her they would censure him as a slanderer and vindicate her good name and reputation. It being represented that George Rob was waiting in the church-yard he was desired to be called and compearing acknowledged that he had been guilty of uncleanness with Margaret Tap, which she still persisted peremptorily to refuse and the session desiring the said George to condescend upon presumptions of what he asserted, he declared that he could prove by good witnesses that she had left her bed in the silence of the night to come to him into the open fields, and yet (?) he and she had been in a lock-fast house together without company several winter evenings and being desired to give a list of witnesses for proving these facts he condescended upon the following persons viz James Cruickshank, Alex Cruickshank servitors [= servants] to George Tap, George Menny and Isobel Steven all in Bruckhills. The session appointed their officer to summond these witnesses to a session to meet at the manse on Monday next by 11 of the clock forenoon at which time the said George Rob and Margaret Tap were cited to attend apud acta [= give evidence orally]. The minister likewise acquainted the session that John Gardiner servitor to John Panton in Neitherthird had come to him and delated [= accused] himself as guilty of fornication with the said Margaret Tap, and that he had desired the said John Gardiner to attend  the session here this day,and and he being likewise called and not compearing, the officer was appointed to summond him to the said dyet [diet = assembly] on Monday. Session closed with prayer.

The Margaret Tap mentioned here is almost certainly the daughter born to George Tap in Bruckhills (probably the George Tap referred to in the above extract) in 1728, which means she would have been about 21 at the time of this incident. She would marry Alexander Peter in 1752.

I find parts of this account curiously affecting. The reference to George Robb ‘waiting in the church-yard’ while Margaret gives her evidence brings him suddenly to life: we can almost picture him pacing among the tombstones. And other sentences imply a latent poetic talent on the part of the parish secretary: ’she had left her bed in the silence of the night to come to him into the open fields’ is a wonderfully vivid, rhythmic phrase with strong biblical overtones. Perhaps the minute-taker was captivated by this tale of youthful romance despite himself (and despite its acrimonious ending).

A few days later, on 24th July, the session meets again, and we read first of all that ’session delayed the entering (?) upon George Rob, Margaret Tap and John Gardiner’s affairs until sermon to which time the meeting was adjourned.’  Later in the meeting we get the hearing, with detailed presentations from the witnesses who have been summoned, as follows:

Margaret Tap being called compeared and craved the session would continue to enquire into the slander raised against her by George Rob and also by John Gardiner. George Rob being called compeared and being interrogate if he persisted in his slanderous accursation of Margaret Tap declard that finding he could prove nothing material of what he had alleged, he was willing to repair the injury done to Margaret Tap’s character, in any way the session should think fit. But Margaret Tap and some of her friends insisting that the witnesses which he had named might be examined, the session proceeded accordingly to examine them and James Cruickshank in Bruckhills being called compeard a married man aged 49 years and being solemnly sworn and purged of malice and partial counsel and interrogate what he knew concerning the conversation of George Rob and Margaret Tap together deponed [= deposed, gave testimony] that he saw George Rob and Margaret Tap walking together in the night time, but at what hour he does not remember, the way to the said Margaret Tap’s father’s house and being interrogate at what distance they were from her father’s house when he first saw them declared that to the best of his rememberance it was about the distance of a ridge length or two, and being interrogate if he saw them sitting declared that he did not, but to the best of his remebrance they were rising up when he first saw them.  Causa Scientia. He was coming from the Miln of Badenscoth to his own house and this is all that he knows in the matter. Sic subscribit James Crookshank.

Alex Crookshank in Bruckhills an unmarried man aged 23 years being called compeared and being solemnly sworn and purged of malice and partial counsel and being interrogate what he knew concerning the conversation of George Rob and Margt Tap together deponed that he knew nothing in the matter and further that he never saw anything amiss in Margaret Tap’s behaviour with George Rob or any other man. Cause Scientia. He has been her father’s servant since Martinmass last. Declared he cannot write.

George Menny in Bruckhills a married man aged 37 years being called compeard and being solemnly sworn and purged of malice and partial counsel and being interrogate what he knew of the conversation of George Rob ad Margaret Tap toether, deponed that some time in the end of harvest last as he was coming home from the meadows of Bruckhills a little after sunset he saw George Rob and Margaret Tap lying by one another but in no indecent posture and this is all that he knows of the matter.

Sic Subt. G. M.

Isobel Stephen a widow woman in Bruckhills age 45 years being called compeared, and being solemnly sworn and purged of malice and partial counsel, and being interrogate what she knew in the life and conversation of George Rob and Margaret Rob together deponed that George Rob and Margaret Tap had been  several times in her house together, sometimes in company with others and sometimes by themselves but that she never saw anything indecent in their behaviour with one another either in words or deeds. And being interrogate if ever she locked them up together in her house declared that she has not had a lock-fast door for two years past. And being further interrogate if she had ever gone out of the house and left the said George Rob and Margaret Tap together and no company with them declared that she never left her house designedly for them, but cannot say but she has gone to well or flock (?) or any other businesss about her house while they weee in it without any other companu And further declared that she never observed any ting in the behaviour of Margaret Tap but what was decent and commendable and this is all she knows in the matter and declares she cannot write.

John Gardiner being called compeared and acknowledged that he came to the miister and declared to him that he had been guilty with Margaret Tap and was willing to give satisfaction for his lewd conversation [connivation?] with her. But now declared that it was false that he said and that he never had any ill behaviour with her and being interrogate what had tempted him to defame himself and her at such a rate declared that he had uttered rash words concerning his behaviour and hers in the mercat [market?] of Sinsain [?] Fair, and in regard that Margaret Tap had threatened to adduce witnesses to prove that he had defamed her, and being sensible that it was in her power to have done so, he was induced by George Rob to come to the minister and declare to him that he had been guilty with her persuading him that it would be better to confess to the minister than to have what he had said in the market judicially proven by witnesses.

The session considering that this case is of a very uncommon nature referred it to the presbytery for their advice and appointed their clerk to draw out an extract of it form the minister to be laid befoe the presbytery at their next meeting on the 3^rd Wednesday of August next. Session closed with prayer.

The final chapter in this saga appears to occur on 27th August, when the minister reports back to the session on the verdict of the presbytery:

A.M. Session met and constitute. The minister reported that he had laid the extract of the process anent George Rob, Margaret Tap and John Gardiner before the Presbyery and that the Presbytery had given it as their advice that considering George Rob and John Gardiner had most maliciously and villainously defamed and slandered Margaret Tap they should be obliged to appear before the congregation upon the ordinary place for delinquents and publicly acknowledge the injury they had done to Margaret Tap’s character by making a recantation of the slander they had cast upon her and saying each of them in express terms False Tongue he had lied. And for the discouraging of such malicious practices for the time to come the Presbytery advised the session to be assisting to Margaret Tap and her friends in prosecuting George Rob and John Gardiner before the commissary of Aberdeen or any other judge competent and the minister having represented hat he had caused summond George Rob and John Gardiner to this meeting of session to hear the sentence of the Presbytery intimate to them, they were accordingly called and compearing the same was intimate to them,  in which they acquiesced and craved that they might be allowed to make their appearance this day to repair the injury done to Margaret Tap’s character, and to be absolved, to which the session consented. Session closed with prayer.

It’s difficult to know what to make of this episode and George Robb’s part in it, at a distance of more than two and half centuries, and with only this account to rely on. As I suggested earlier, the story of young George and Margaret canoodling in the fields and taking long walks together seems like an everyday tale of youthful romance – if we can ignore the accusations of slander. Whether George Robb and John Gardiner were actually telling lies about Margaret Tap we have no way of telling. The evidence appears to be contradictory, and one suspects that the various witnesses had their own reasons for giving their particular versions of events. Modern readers will probably be less forgiving of George and John boasting about their supposed sexual exploits with Margaret to all and sundry. But even that might be put down to youthful high spirits, and George Robb’s character might have emerged from these records intact, if it wasn’t for his second summons to appear before the kirk session two years later, in 1751.

But that will have to wait until another post.

Robbs in the Auchterless kirk session records

Yet again, I’m extremely grateful to my fellow family historian and distant relative John Brechin, this time for making a fascinating discovery in the National Archives in Edinburgh. John has looked up the 18th century kirk session minutes for the parish of Auchterless, Aberdeenshire, and identified all the entries that appear to mention members of the Robb (or Rob) family.  He has kindly sent me both electronic and paper copies, and I’m indebted to him for his time and effort.

The writing in these records can be quite difficult to decipher, but as with other contemporary accounts, they have the effect of making our ancestors spring to life from the dusty pages of history, and they provide the kind of intriguing (if not always complimentary) insights into their characters and daily lives that you just can’t get from parish registers and census records.

I’ve managed to transcribe the relevant passages as best I can, and in the next few posts I’ll be reproducing some extracts, and speculating as to what they can tell us about the Auchterless Robbs. For now, though, it might be useful to provide some background information about kirk session minutes.

Genealogist Diane Baptie describes the range of Church of Scotland records in existence:

The Kirk Session Minutes contain records of fornication, poor rolls, mortcloth accounts (good for finding deaths); some baptisms and marriages not engrossed in the Old Parish Registers […]  There are also some earlier censuses, communion rolls and lists of heads of families.

The Presbytery Minutes are valuable for finding out about ministers, schoolmaster, divinity students and the church buildings as well as transgressors who were referred to them by the kirk sessions.

And social historian Leah Leneman adds the following useful context:

The Presbyterian church in eighteenth century Scotland was organised in a pyramidal structure. First there were the kirk sessions, responsible for controlling moral conduct at parish level, then presbyteries, responsible for church affairs of a group of parishes in one area, then synods, and finally the General Assembly which operated at national level. For the social historian, it is the kirk session records which are of most interest because they document the behaviour of social classes who do not normally appear in written records.

[...]

The session consisted of the Minister and a group of elders, who would be respected members of the community. They were not usually land-owners or members of the elite (the latter might involve themselves at presbytery level but rarely at kirk session level).

[...]

As the Presbyterian Church was, after 1689, the Established Church  of Scotland, the kirk session in theory had jurisdiction over the whole of its parish.

[...]

How seriously did parishioners who fell under the kirk session’s authority take it? They certainly made use of it when it came to protecting their good name. Slander and backbiting were considered sinful by the kirk, and the session provided an opportunity for parishioners who felt they had been slandered to come forward and vent their grievance. Throughout the century the session acted as mediator between aggrieved parties, taking the trouble to hear both sides and reconcile fractious neighbours.

The obsession with the moral, and especially the sexual conduct of parishioners, is certainly in evidence in the Auchterless records copied by John. It’s important to remember that indiviuals would only come to the attention of the session if they had transgressed in some way – antenuptial fornication, adultery, slander and Sabbath-breaking seem to have been particular concerns – or if they were in need of parish charity (which shows the kirk in a more positive and compassionate light). This means that we inevitably get a slanted view of our ancestors’ behaviour (their good behaviour obviously goes unrecorded) and it’s refracted through the lens of contemporary values. So activities that most people today would regard as unremarkable – such as sexual relations before marriage, even with the person you had pledged to marry – in 18^th century Aberdeenshire were cause for stern rebuke and even financial penalties. And in understanding our forebears’ sexual antics,  it’s useful to remember that it was usual for men to delay marriage until they could afford to provide a home for their new family.

As with all records, the more you find out, the more you want to know, and having this glimpse into the lives of my Auchterless ancestors has made me hungry to discover if there are other similar records lurking in the archives. Perhaps the Culsalmond kirk session minutes might confirm whether my 3 x great uncle William Robb was indeed the parish schoolmaster before he was ordained as an Episcopal clergyman?

The good news for family historians is that kirk sessions records for the whole of Scotland are in the process of being digitised, and there are plans for general online access, perhaps via Scotland’s People, possibly as early as autumn next year.

Elizabeth Robb (1821 – 1860)

Elizabeth was the seventh of the eight children of Charles Robb and Margaret Monteith. The register in the family Bible contains the following information about her:

Born at Malton, 21st June. Baptized July 12th 1820. Married St. Martins in the Fields to Joseph Boden 22nd Feby. 1841, Died 10th January 1860, age 39 years. Buried at Tower Hamlets Cemetery.

I’ve obtained a copy of the marriage certificate for Elizabeth and Joseph. Under ‘age’ Joseph is said to be of ‘full age’ (he was born in 1814, so would have been 26 or 27) whereas Elizabeth is a ‘minor’ (she would have been a few months short of her 21st birthday). Joseph’s profession is given as ‘dentist’ and his address as 32 Great Castle Street (probably the road that leads off Regent Street, just north of Oxford Street). His father, John Boden, is described as a farmer (we know from census records that Joseph was born in Derbyshire).

Elizabeth’s address is given simply as ‘Charing Cross’ and her father Charles is described as a ‘Gent’. I would be interested to find out more about the use of  this term and what it implied. For example, does it suggest an independent source of income? That seems at odds with Charles’ description as a ‘clerk’ in the census taken later that same year.

The wedding was conducted by Septimus Ramsey, the curate of St. Martin’s, and witnessed by Charles Robb and Margaret Wright.

At the time of the 1851 census Elizabeth and Joseph, now aged 30 and 37 respectively, were living at 54 Lawrence Lane in the parish of St. Mary le Bow, with 16 year old house servant Elizabeth Earl.

I’ve been unable to confirm the date of Joseph’s death – there are plenty of death records for Joseph Bodens of roughly the same age, but none in London or at around the right time. However, he must have died some time between 1851 and 1860, since Elizabeth is described on her death certificate (which I’ve also just obtained) as ‘widow of Joseph Woolley (?) Boden, Dentist professed’.

Elizabeth died in January 1860 at the age of 39, at 30 Gillingham Street, in the registration district of St. George Hanover Square, and in the sub-district of Belgrave. The informant of her death, who was ‘in attendance’, was Matilda Robb, also of 30 Gillingham Street, Pimlico – her older sister.  The cause of death is given as follows:

Found dead in Bed, probably resulting from fractured skull from a fall – 7 years since. No medical attendant.

Just over a month later, Matilda would marry Frederick King at St. George Hanover Square. The address for both Matilda and Frederick is given as Gillingham Street (which I believe was in a newly-built and genteel part of Pimlico). So it would seem that Elizabeth went to live with her sister after the death of her husband Joseph, whenever that occurred. In this post I speculated that Matilda came to London after the death in 1855 of Lady Frances Basset of Tehidy Park, Cornwall, for whom she had been working as a lady’s maid.