|
This book is no longer in
print. Ware Museum Trust Editor David Perman
The History of a Ware Family
Part 1: The Early Years...
By Aline Burgess
(Grand-daughter of either
Reverend Percy H Collins
Published by
'The
Ware Museum
Trust'
ISBN 0 9517045 3 2 Printed by Hertfordshire Display Company, 51 High Street, Ware, Herts SG12
Chapter I THE CHUCKS OF WAREMy father never talked much about his family and when I was young. I never thought to question him about it. I knew he was born in Kent, a younger son of the Vicar of High Halden, but I had no idea the family had its roots in Hertfordshire. Even when my husband (then my fiancé') qualified and obtained a post in Watford, my father never commented to me that my grandfather had been born in the county. It was only when, more than twenty years after my father's death, my mother showed me a box full of papers, souvenirs and photographs which she had rescued when my uncle's widow died, that I became interested in tracing the family history. The following is an account of what I have discovered about the Hertfordshire side of the family, since first examining the contents of the box in 1985. The Hertfordshire connection begins with a family by the name of Chuck. John Chuck and his wife Sarah (nee Stockbridge) had three sons who were baptised in St. Mary's Church Ware, John in 1756, Edward in 1762, and William in 1764. Edward and William both married, but each just had daughters, so it was only the eldest son, another John Chuck, who perpetuated the name. There were other Chuck families in the town, but not connected to my family so far as has been discovered to date. John and Sarah Chuck were buried in Ware churchyard, but by the time copies of the inscriptions on the tombstones were made many years later, [1] the only legible date was 1771 for John's death. Sarah's date of death and both their ages were too faint to read by then. According to his Will, made in 1767, John Chuck was a victualler, but he was also in the malting business, though only in a fairly small way. John bequeathed everything to his wife... "But nevertheless to the intent that my said wife do and shall therewith or thereout maintain and bring up all such child and children which I shall leave behind now born or to be born of her body during the single life and marriage of such child or children respectively..." He was unable to write his name, so he signed his will with his mark. Probate was granted to Sarah on the 17th June 1771. According to the International Genealogical Index compiled by the Mormon Church, the name Chuck appears in various places in the eastern part of the County around the middle of the eighteenth century. They may have come from over the border in Essex, or they could have filtered in down the Old North Road from Cambridgeshire, because most of the villages they settled in seem to lie to either side of that road. Ware was a busy bustling town in the first half of the nineteenth century, thanks to the trunk road I have mentioned. I was amazed to find from the Hertfordshire Directory for 1839 how many stagecoaches passed through Ware at that date. They travelled between London and towns such as Cambridge, Lynn, Wisbech, Peterborough, Stamford and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. At least ten coaches in each direction stopped in Ware almost every day of the week, between the hours of 3.30 a.m. and 6.30 p.m. Many of them had splendid names such as The Royal Mail, The Telegraph, The Rocket, The Wellington, The Star, the Beehive and The Defiance. In addition to the numerous stage coaches, carriers' wagons also travelled through Ware on a regular basis three days a week on their way between London and Hertford, Hatfield and St. Albans, so there would always be an air of excitement and bustle about the town. All this changed in the early 1840's, when the railway came to Ware. The very first custom-built passenger railway, from Liverpool to Manchester, had been opened in September 1830. Ware had its own station by 1843 and from 1862 was on a branch of the Great Eastern Rail way with its London terminus at Liverpool Street. The journey took forty minutes. One of the treasures in the box my mother handed over to me was a fine linen or cotton cloth, about the size of a tray-cloth, with a cartoon printed on it in pink. It was entitled "THE CENTURY OF INVENTION Anno Domini 2000-or the march of aerostation, steam and perpetual motion." The cartoon shows an artist's impression of life in the year 2000, dominated by steam. The trains are like the early 1840 models and amongst the inventive designs are steam road coaches, steam horses for the cavalry, buildings mounted on wheels being moved around by steam and a tall construction resembling the Post Office Tower, which serves as a station for assorted hot-air balloons. There is even a cast-iron parson preaching by steam! I was not sure exactly what this cloth could be, until, in the National Army Museum in Chelsea, I came across a very similar object, which was labelled as a commemorative handkerchief. This was the same size as mine and was printed, again in pink, with scenes from the Battle of Waterloo. So I think mine too could be a commemorative handkerchief, though of a slightly later date. I would think it is probably contemporary with the type of railway engines it depicts, so I wonder whether perhaps it was a little souvenir purchased by the family when the railway came to Ware. Malting was the main industry of Ware, with the barley being brought in to the town from the grain growing districts of the county and from East Anglia. The Hertfordshire barley was particularly suitable for the dark malt required for porter and a great deal of the malt supplied to the big London brewers came from Ware. In the first half of the eighteenth century the malt was transported to London from Ware, either by cart, or by barge on the River Lea, neither of which was entirely satisfactory; carts got bogged down in the mud in bad weather and they churned up so much mud that the roads around Ware were notorious. The river, on the other hand, was very tortuous, had no towpath and was too shallow in places in dry weather. However, a company was formed to improve the navigation of the river and as well as 'county' names and those of the large brewers, the names of many of the Ware maltsters and the barge owners can be found amongst the Trustees of the Company, including several of the Adams family. The necessary Act of Parliament was passed in 1766 and then work began. Meanders were by-passed by straight cuts, towpaths and locks were built and docks and wharfs constructed where the Lea Navigation met the Thames at Limehouse. Accidents to barges still occurred on the new Navigation as they had done on the old. In the Hertford Quarter Sessions Books one finds references to appeals by maltsters for the refund of tax on barge-loads of malt which had been spoilt by accidents on the river, in 1779, Henry Page, a maltster and barge owner with family connections, was granted a certificate by the Justices, "That he be allowed half the duty which he had paid on 92 quarters of malt, which were damaged by his barge striking against the stump of a tree at or near Eniield Lock in the River Lea.” [2] Tolls had to be paid on the Navigation according to the type of cargo carried and malt carried the highest charges. Some wily maltsters tried to avoid paying their dues — for instance, in 1793 Joseph Taylor of Ware his conviction and fine of £5 for issuing a false bill of lading for his bargeman to produce to the Collector of Tolls at Kings Weir Lock on the River Lea. The appeal was dismissed.[3] The key men in the malting business were the malt factors, who acted as middle men between the farmers and the brewers. They used their skill and judgement in selecting the best barley, arranged for its transport to the mailings and then stored it until it was required by the brewers. Both the brewing and the malting industries tended to be family concerns with a network of complicated connections and each malt factor built up his own web of connections with family and friends with whom he conducted his business. Due to the nature of their business, malt factors were maltsters who also owned the transport such as barges and wagons and many also became bankers, in order to facilitate payment between the farmers and the brewers. The barley had to be made into malt, thus converting the starch in the grain into a type of sugar known as maltose. The process consisted of soaking the grain in water in seeping cisterns, spreading it out on the germination floors and turning it over carefully once or twice a day whilst it germinated and then curing it in kilns to stop germination at a particular point. The higher the temperature in the kiln, the darker the malt and the darker the resultant beer. Traditional brown malt, as produced in Ware, was cured at a very high temperature over a wood fire of oak or hornbeam, which added to the flavour. After processing, the malt was loaded into barges on the River Lea and carried down to the breweries in London, or it might be stored in Ware on behalf of a brewery. Mr. Robert Hanbury, of Messrs. Truman. Hanbury, Buxton & Co. was a resident of Ware in the second half of the nineteenth century. The Hanbury family had lived for several generations at Poles, a house just north of the town. A report in The Times on the 11th July 1866 describes a visit of the Prince of Wales to the Truman Brewery in London. The first process the Prince watched was the mixing of the malt in huge vats, where it was sprayed with revolving jets of boiling water. It was stated that 17,000 quarters of malt could be stored at the brewery itself, but that a further 120,000 quarters were stored at premises 'out of town', which could well refer to Ware, as the maltster John Taylor held most of the malt for Trumans. Malting was a seasonal business because the barley germinated too fast during the warm weather and so the labourers had to find alternative work during the slack season. At the end of April the mailings were cleaned out and whitewashed ready for the next season and the men went on to find other work for the summer, such as brick making or agricultural labouring. Until 1880 tax was paid on the grain by the maltsters and of course they got up to all sorts of dodges to minimise the tax they paid. Inspectors travelled around the mailings to check how much barley was being mailed, so one of the tricks was to tread down the grain on the floors to make it look less, or to add more grain after the inspector had left. But in 1788 Richard Gladding of Ware successfully appealed against his conviction and fine for 'treading a couch of malt'. [4] It looks as if he was reported by Robert Grand, an over-officious Supervisor of Excise who was appointed in 1787 and who made numerous petty accusations against the maltsters of Ware, which were subsequently dismissed. Robert Grand made himself so unpopular that eventually the maltsters went on strike in protest and the man was removed from the town by the Board of Excise. Robert Grand may have been over-officious, but it was a fact that the maltsters were up to all sorts of tricks to minimise the amount of tax they had to pay. They might, for instance, water the grain without giving notice to the officer of Excise, or mix together the grain of two different steepings. Another way of avoiding tax was to hurry a load of barley through the system between the Inspector's visits so that he knew nothing about it a certain maltster, Alfred Alien, went to much greater lengths in the middle of the nineteenth century to defraud the Excise in a big way [5]. He owned mailings in Worthing and Horsham in Sussex as well as in Ware and it was the Excise officers in Worthing who first suspected that Mr. Alien was producing far more malt than he was declaring. A search of his premises revealed a trap-door opening onto an underground passage. This led to two cellars, one fitted up with a malting cistern and the other with couch frames, almost as large as those on the floor above. A system of secret pipes and shoots communicated with the bona fides mailings al ground level. The Excise Inspectors at Horsham and Ware were alerted and they found exactly the same system operating at Mr. Alien's premises in both those towns. Mr. Alien was producing almost double the amount of malt he was declaring! Click to see Chuck Family Tree... This then was the working atmosphere in which the Chuck family made their living, but hopefully they were somewhat more honest than Mr. Alien! To go back to the family history, John and Sarah Chuck's eldest son John married Ann Want at St. Mary's Parish Church on April 11th 1774. He was a year or more younger than his wife, who was born in 1753. Her parents were Edward Want (1720-1798) and Ann Want (1724-1770), another family who had connections with malting. Ann had an older sister called Susan and a younger brother called Edward. These same names keep cropping up in each generation. In one way it is helpful in tracing the family tree, because the eldest son and daughter are so often named after their father and mother and the rest after other members of the family, but it does also make it very difficult to make it clear which generation one is talking about at any particular moment. The Parish Records state that John Chuck and Ann Want were, 'Married by licence with consent of parents in the presence of William Myhill, Joseph Mash, John Mash. Charles Proctor, Edmond Larkin and Francis Sadler.' As John was certainly under twenty-one and Ann may, or may not, have quite reached her twenty-first birthday, it was necessary to have the consent of their parents for their marriage. John's father and Ann's mother were already dead, but neither of the surviving parents were witnesses at the wedding, People had to work such long hard hours in those days, it was often the case that the father was not able to take time off to attend the wedding, whilst the mother remained at home to prepare the wedding breakfast John and Ann's first child, Susanna, was christened at St. Mary's on the 5th May 1775, just over a year after her parent's wedding. The child is actually shown as Susan in the Parish Register, but everywhere else she is always described as Susanna - on her marriage certificate, in the Census Returns, in family wills, in the Parish Records at her death, in her obituary in the Herts. Mercury and on her tombstone. After Susanna there followed five other children - Ann, John, Edward, William and Joseph. There were several other families with the name of Chuck living in Ware in the early nineteenth century. One particular family, who were blacksmiths by trade, do not seem to have improved their lot in the ensuing generations, since they were living in the overcrowded slum area of Cherrytree Yard, off Amwell End, at the time of the 1841 Census. I do not know whether they had any connection with our Chuck family, but they signed the marriage register with an 'X' so they evidently continued illiterate. John Chuck II signed his own name on his Will, so he could at least read and write a little, though he was unlikely to have had very much education. His wife Ann signed with a cross on her Will and in the Parish Register at Susanna's wedding. We find mention of John Chuck, maltster of Ware, in the Quarter Sessions Book for 1804, when he claimed a drawback of tax in respect of certain quantities of malt, which were destroyed by fire. [6] As far as business was concerned, he seems to have had more than one string to his bow, which was the usual case with maltsters, because of the seasonal nature of malting. In his Will, John describes himself as a victualler, so it would seem he inherited his father's shop. John Chuck died in 1806 and in his Will [4] he left everything to his wife Ann, on condition "... she provides for our children at such time and in such proportions and in such manner as she may see occasion and think most proper and which I leave entirely to her discretion." Obviously John had implicit faith in Ann's good sense and her ability to manage the family affairs. His estate was sworn at 'under £1,500.'
The east window in St. Mary's Church, erected by Edward Chuck in memory of his parents, John and Ann Chuck (see page 12). No doubt John had looked forward to his eldest son and namesake carrying on as head of the family, but his hopes had been dashed when young John died at sea early in 1805. This is something which has puzzled me somewhat. How did John come to die at sea? Ware is quite a distance from the coast and there is no seafaring tradition in the family. The actual wording on his tombstone [1], 'died at sea', does not seem to me to suggest that he was drowned in a sinking ship or by falling overboard, or that he was killed in action during a naval battle: it suggests to me that he was taken ill on board and died before he could be put ashore. This does not explain whether he was a seaman, or whether he was just travelling, on business perhaps. 1805 was the year of the Battle of Trafalgar, but it seems a little over-dramatic to suggest that John might have been captured by a press gang whilst taking a barge-load of malt to London. However, although John had died, there were still three other sons to help their mother with the family business and they all became maltsters. Edward and Joseph both married, but William appears to have remained a bachelor. The younger daughter, Ann, married Samuel Whitehead, a maltster and malt factor who lived in a large house in Baldock Street (now the Conservative Party offices), with mailings behind it, according to the Tithe Map. They had two little girls, who sadly both died as children and one son who also died a comparatively young man - I do not know if he was married or had any family.
Chapter IISUSANNA COLLINSWhen John and Ann Chuck's elder daughter Susanna grew up, I imagine she helped out in the family shop. Then, in August 1799, [8] a regiment of Heavy Cavalry was posted to the county. The Second Dragoon Guards (known as The Queen's Bays from their bay-coloured horses) arrived straight from two months under canvas on Wimbledon Common, where they had taken part in a Grand Review before King George III. The regimental headquarters was at Hertford, but each troop was based in a different town in the area, including Hatfield, Hoddesden and St. Albans; the Major's troop was billeted in Ware. There were very few barracks in the country at this date, so the troops would be billeted in the local inns and the innkeepers would be granted an allowance for their keep by the Government. Troops had often been billeted in Ware inns; in 1756 for instance, [9] the Clerk of the Peace in Hertford received the following letter from the Treasury Chambers: - "Sir, His Majesty having been graciously pleased by his Royal Warrant, in pursuance of the Address of the House of Commons, to order the sum of £1,000 to be distributed to and amongst the Inn holders and other Public Housekeepers in the several towns of Hertford, Ware and Hoddesdon in the County of Hertford, the Lords Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury have directed me to acquaint you with the same for the information of the Justices and that the Money is issued to Mr. Davis, one of the Clerks of the Treasury, for that purpose." On that occasion the Court allotted £550 out of that sum to the innkeepers of Ware. LIEUTENANT THOMAS COLLINS (Snr) It was now Susanna met and fell in love with a young sergeant in the Major's troop, Thomas Collins. It must have been a whirlwind romance because they were married in St. Andrew's Church, Hertford on the 22nd October, with Susanna's mother signing the register with a cross as one of the witnesses. Both Thomas and Susanna were able to sign with their own signatures. I cannot think that John and Ann Chuck were particularly happy about their daughter marrying a common soldier, however much they may have liked Thomas personally. Soldiers really were a very unpopular and low class of society and they must have been quite dismayed at the thought of the life their daughter would have to lead. It was plucky of Susanna to brave the lot of a common soldier's wife. Cavalry officers had orders to discourage their men from marrying, if at all possible, by reminding them of the terrible conditions the women would encounter in following the regiment. Only six wives per hundred men were officially allowed to accompany their husbands and share their overcrowded barracks, improvising such privacy as they could with the help of a canvas curtain. They could draw half rations, with quarter rations for children (who could be enrolled in the regimental school) and on the move they had to tag along at the rear of the column with the baggage train. The wives found ways of earning a little more money - by selling bread, vegetables and so on and by taking in washing and mending for the bachelor members of the troop. Some of the less reputable camp followers sold liquor or ran gambling sessions. Of course more than six per cent of the men did in fact marry, but the wives who were not 'on the strength' could not live in the barracks and received no rations. When the regiment was posted abroad on active service most of these wives would have to be left behind because there was no room for them all on board ship. They were obliged to draw lots to decide who would be allowed to go. The unfortunate ones received a small sum of money to see them back to their home towns and that was all. No soldiers could save enough from their pay to send back home to their families so the poor wives and children faced a bleak prospect 'on the parish'. However, I am pretty certain Thomas and Susanna must have got the Colonel's approval for their marriage, not only because St. Andrew's Church was within a stone's throw of Hertford Castle, which would have been The Bays' headquarters, but also because Thomas was already a sergeant and I think he was a well-trusted member of the regiment. I have reason to believe, though I cannot prove it for certain, that Thomas was the son of an older Thomas Collins, who served in the same regiment from the early 1770's until his retirement with the rank of Sergeant Major and Quartermaster in 1797. If this is correct, Thomas must have lived all his life in the regiment and I think this could have enhanced his chances of promotion. In December the regiment moved on northwards and Susanna accompanied her husband. In March 1800 Thomas received his promotion to Sergeant Major and his pay rose from £3 7s 2d per month to £6 1s 5d. Over the years Susanna travelled with the regiment around England, then for a spell in Ireland, where Thomas became Troop Quartermaster and then back to England again. The year 1808 saw a big change in their circumstances: Thomas received a commission by promotion and became a cornet and at the same time, Adjutant of the regiment. At that time most army commissions were obtained by purchase; a commission as a cornet in a cavalry regiment cost at least £735, so only a young man with private means could possibly afford it. Officers promoted from the ranks seldom rose beyond lieutenant and they were usually given some executive post such as Adjutant, or Riding Master, which meant that they did all the donkey work in the regiment, whilst the officers with private means pursued the life of a country gentleman when they were not on campaign (or even when they were!) - hunting, shooting and mingling in society and actually spent very little time with their troops. Thomas received his promotion to lieutenant in 1809 and remained as Adjutant of the regiment until he retired in 1826. During all this time he received £ 15.10s 0d per month, but his expenses became much greater now that he was an officer. He would have had to supply his own uniform, all his equipment and a minimum of two horses and also employ a servant. Officers without private means were almost constantly in debt and one wonders how they managed to survive at all. Then Susanna would probably have been received with a certain amount of prejudice by the other wives at first, but I think she was a sensible, capable and kindly woman who would soon have made a place for herself as the wife of the Adjutant. In the course of time Susanna and Thomas had five children, all born in different places, according to where the regiment happened to be at the time. Thomas was born in Bristol in 1801, Susanna in Ireland in 1804, Edward (my great-grandfather) in Chichester in 1808, Margaret somewhere in the south of England in 1811 and Anne Elizabeth in Tipparary in 1819. The regiment took part in the disastrous, mismanaged Walchern campaign of 1809, when so many more of the soldiers died of fever than in battle, that the whole campaign had to be called off. However, The Bays were lucky in that there was very little work for the cavalry to do, so they had been sent home early and thus missed the worst of the sickness. I rather doubt whether Susanna accompanied her husband to the Low Countries, as she then had three young children in tow. It is more likely that she returned to Ware to stay with her family for the duration, which, in the event, turned out to be merely a matter of weeks. After that campaign, the regiment took no further part in the Napoleonic Wars, but they were sent out to France in August 1815 to become part of the Army of Occupation after the Battle of Waterloo and they marched in the victory review in Paris. Then they were based in St. Omer in northern France for three years. This time Susanna did accompany her husband. From France, the regiment sailed for Ireland in 1818 and then back to England in 1822. The regiment was in Dorchester in 1825 when Thomas was taken ill. From August of that year his signature no longer appeared on the monthly Muster Rolls; they were signed by the Acting Adjutant. Officially, Thomas's retirement on half pay dated from August 1826, by which time it must have been obvious that he would never be fit enough to take up his duties again. By this time, young Thomas Chuck Collins was also an army officer; he obtained a commission in his father's regiment by purchase in 1820. I cannot think Thomas could possibly have afforded to pay for the commission, so I think perhaps the Chuck family might have helped him out. In 1825 young Thomas purchased his lieutenancy and transferred into an infantry regiment which was serving in the West Indies, but had its home depot in Winchester. I believe he joined the Depot staff in order to stay near his parents, who were left behind in Dorchester when The Bays moved on to Manchester. Thomas Collins senior finally died on the 15th September 1827. After burying her husband in Dorchester, Susanna returned to Ware with her three daughters and her younger son Edward. Her elder son soon transferred regiments once more and elected to sail for India to join a British regiment stationed in Trichinopoli. If he was prepared to risk the climate, a young officer's pay would stretch much further in India than in England and Thomas was evidently attracted by the excitement and opportunities of an exotic foreign land. He must have passed his enthusiasm on to his younger brother; Edward trained at the Royal Veterinary College in Camden Town and was proud to record that one of his tutors was the famous doctor, surgeon and lecturer, Sir Astley Paston Cooper. Once he had qualified, he applied to the East India Company for a vacancy as a Veterinary Officer in the Company's army. He was accepted for the Madras Native Light Cavalry and arrived in Madras in August 1830 to take up his duties. Many years later, in 1846, the middle daughter Margaret married an officer in the Madras Native Infantry. For a long while I could not think how she came to meet George Trevor Sayer Carruthers, unless it was an arranged marriage, organised by her brother Edward. There was an acute shortage of marriageable young women in India, so 'blind' marriages did sometimes take place. If this is the case, it was a brave thing for Margaret to do. However, it has recently occurred to me that Margaret could have travelled out to India after Edward's first wife died, expressly to look after his three motherless young children and could subsequently have met and married George Carruthers. Whichever way it happened, the fact remains that three of Susanna's five children departed for India, two of them never to return. Click to see Collins Family Tree... I have not found any information about Susanna's life back in Ware between her return in 1827 and the 1841 Census Return, but it would seem that her eldest daughter, Susanna, went to live with her uncle Edward Chuck and his wife. I think she probably acted as a companion to Elizabeth, who was childless and in poor health. I suspect that Susanna herself probably went back to helping in the family shop. The 1841 Census Return shows that she and her youngest daughter were living in Baldock Street with her brother William Chuck, who was either a bachelor or a widower. Their mother, Ann Chuck, had also lived in Baldock Street until her death in 1840. It is interesting to see what provisions Ann Chuck made in her Will [10] for her various children. They were not treated quite equally, so the arrangements must have been made with due consideration for their differing circumstances, as suggested in her husband's Will. Ann left £2,000 to be divided between her five children in equal shares. As far as her daughter Ann Whitehead was concerned, she specified that the money was for her "independent of her husband" and not to be used to pay his debts. Susanna's share of her mother's legacy was to be invested; she was to enjoy the income for life, free from the debts of any future husband and on her death the capital was to be divided equally between her children. Apart from that, Ann left all her real estate, including the mailings and the shop in Ware, to her son William and to her youngest son Joseph she left her furniture. Edward received nothing apart from his share of the £2,000, so presumably Ann thought that he was the least in need of assistance, or perhaps as the eldest surviving son, he had already received his inheritance during his mother's lifetime. Although Ann Chuck died in 1840, probate of her Will was not granted until 1845. I do not know why there was such a long delay. The Executors were named as her sons Edward and William, but probate was granted just to Edward, with power reserved to William. In fact, William died in 1845, so he was still alive, but evidently not well enough to act, when his mother's Will was proved. This time the estate was sworn at 'under £3,000', so Ann's circumstances must have improved since her husband's death. By the 1851 Census, Susanna was living in Baldock Street alone with her one servant, presumably in the house she had shared with her brother. I do not know who inherited the shop and the mailings. Susanna's sister, Ann Whitehead, also died in 1840, her son followed her in 1844 and her husband in 1846, so, with the little daughters long since dead, it seems that line of the family was probably completely wiped out. Captain Thomas Chuck Collins in India Out in India, Thomas Collins had transferred into the 44th Regiment of Foot in 1831, when his original regiment was due to return to England. In 1841 the 44th was sent to Afghanistan to relieve one of the regiments in Kabul, where they were defending the Shah nominated by the British to replace the previous ruler, whom they had deposed as unfriendly to British interests. This action turned out to be a great mistake, as Shah Suja and his British support force were intensely resented by the Afghan tribal chiefs. The First Afghan War was one long story of bad decision-making, awful blunders and incompatible personalities, which inevitably led to disaster. Shortly after Thomas and the 44th arrived in Kabul, the trouble erupted into a violent uprising, which eventually resulted in the whole British 'Army of the Indus' ignominiously evacuating Kabul and endeavouring to retire to Jellalabad, where there was a small British force. The retreat began on the 6th January 1842 in deep snow and they were under continuous attack from bands of tribesmen from the very start. After three days, General Elphinstone ordered all the wives and children to be given up as hostages to the enemy, to save them from certain death by attack, starvation or freezing cold. The husbands of the women and a handful of men too badly wounded to fight, were ordered to go with them. The rest of the army, which had set out with 4,500 fighting men and 12,000 camp followers, valiantly struggled on, being fiercely attacked every inch of the way. By January 13th there were only about forty of them left alive and Thomas was one of them. The final annihilation of the army took place at a village called Gandamak, when all but half a dozen were slaughtered. The few who were taken prisoner were sent to join the rest of the hostages, except for just one single man, Dr. Bryden, who managed to escape both death and capture and struggled on to Jellalabad. It was the most dire disaster ever experienced by the British army up to that date. It was many months before the dreadful news filtered back to England. They did not hear of the November uprising until March, so the news of the Last Stand at Gandamak would not have reached Susanna before about June and even then, she must have held out hopes for many more months that SOMEHOW Thomas had managed to survive. Twenty years were to elapse before she was to hear a first-hand account of the last days of her elder son's life (see Part II, page 21). Susanna's daughter Margaret never returned from India either. Her marriage to George Carruthers was childless and Margaret died in Bellary in central India in 1852. Her husband married again, had several children by his second wife and distinguished himself in the Crimean War when he was one of the Indian Army officers sent to command battalions of Turkish troops. He earned himself the Order of the Medjidie. Edward Chuck Collins enjoyed a much less harrowing career in India than his unfortunate brother. He remained all the time in the Province of Madras, which was quite peaceful by this date. In 1835 he married Gertrude von Kutzleben, the daughter of the colonel of a Madras Infantry regiment. Her father was a Baron who had inherited his title from his father, who had - been Minister Plenipotentiary to the Landgrave of Hesse Cassel in London's before the Napoleonic Wars. Gertrude was the Baron's eldest daughter. She presented her husband with three children; Edward was born in 1836, Anne in 1838 and Susan in 1840. Unfortunately, some time between 1841 and 1845, Gertrude died, leaving Edward with three young children to care for. As I have already mentioned, I think this was what prompted Margaret to travel out to India to help her brother. In about 1847, Edward was passing through Bangalore with his regiment when he met up with the two daughters of Charles and Jane Floyd, friends he and Gertrude and known in happier times. The sisters had also known much sorrow since they had last met—both their parents had died and also the husband of Sophie, the elder sister, not to mention three of her five babies. The younger, unmarried sister, Caroline, was twenty years younger than Edward, but something attracted them to each other. They were only able to spend a few hours together before Edward's regiment moved on to Trichinopoli, but after a few months' correspondence, Edward proposed and was accepted gladly. Carrie loved children and was quite happy to take on three step-children. By the time Edward was due for retirement, Carrie also had three children of her own; Caroline was born hi 1848, Charles in 1850 and Floyd in 1851. When they arrived home in England in 1853, they settled down in Ware and Edward was able to introduce Carrie and his 'regiment' of children, as he described them, to his mother Susanna and the rest of the Chuck family.
Chapter III Susanna's brother Edward comes across to me as one of the most sympathetic characters I have encountered. He seems to have been a prominent and well-respected businessman in the town, recognised as a good and generous employer who looked after the welfare of his men. For quite a while I was under the impression that he and his wife Elizabeth lived in one of the timber-framed houses in the mid-High Street area, with makings running back behind it to the river, because of the little lane there which is called Water Row. But when I examined the 1845 Tithe Map, I found that Edward did not own any property in that area of the High Street. In fact, he owned the big house at the end of the street, which at that date also had mailings behind it reaching down to the river. It is now the Public Library. I have since discovered that, as I suspected must be the case, Water Row referred to the side of the High Street nearest the river and Land Row referred to the other side of the street Edward also owned the house next door to his, which was let to Dr. William McNab, as well as another large house on the Watton Road, the local wash house near the church and several other properties in the town, which he rented out. The house Edward lived in, Number 87, is a red brick building with a stone portico and is one of the grander ones in the High Street, having pleasantly proportioned front rooms on each of three floors and various smaller rooms at the back. The front rooms look out across the High Street to the church. All the buildings except the house, which is now Ware Library, have been demolished to make way for a public car park, the entrance to which is where Dr. McNab's house would have stood. Edward's wife Elizabeth was the daughter of George and Judith Cass, another Ware malting family. Edward and Elizabeth did not have any children and Elizabeth suffered from poor health. In his Will made in 1841, Edward referred to her as his "dear afflicked wife". She seems to have come from a delicate family because her two younger sisters, Ann Maria and Susanna Matilda, died aged nineteen and twenty respectively. Elizabeth was extremely deaf and possibly had some other long-term disability as well. She may have been housebound, or even bedridden in her later years. As I have mentioned, 'young' Susanna was living in her uncle' s house at the time of both the 1841 and the 1851 Census Returns, as her aunt's companion and the household also included a cook and two housemaids. Edward was a maltster producing around 50,000 quarters of malt each year and was the malt factor for both Courage and Whitbread in Ware. Members of both the Whitbread and Courage families were Edward's personal friends and he was godfather to one of the Courage boys. The John Courage with whom Edward was friendly was the son of the original John Courage who founded the brewery in Southwark in 1787. John's wife Susan came from a Norfolk brewing family and they set up home in Camberwell at first and later in Dulwich. In all they had ten children and Edward Chuck became godfather to his namesake, who was one of the younger sons. I am sure Edward would have been delighted to act as godfather, having no children of his own; from the descriptions of his character, I feel he would have been very fond of children. The two eldest sons of John Courage Junior became partners with their father in 1852, but he died in 1854 and young Edward Courage joined the firm at that time, continuing as a partner until his death in 1904. W.H. Whitbread was another personal friend and he travelled to Ware to attend Edward's funeral service. He was the second son of Samuel Whitbread II and entered the family brewing business in 1815. Like his father and grandfather before him, he stood as M.P. for Bedford and entered parliament. Like most men in the business, Edward Chuck had many other interests besides the actual malting. As I have already explained, malt factors were often also bankers and Edward followed this pattern. In about 1819 he became a partner in the Ware Bank with George Cass Senior (his father-in-law) and John Cass (his brother-in-law). The address is given as Water Row, so perhaps the ground floor of 87 High Street was used for banking purposes and Edward and Elizabeth lived' above the shop'. The bank survived until about 1826, but closed down shortly after the death of George Cass Senior and soon after George Cass Junior had joined the firm. Private banks were going through a bad patch and as there was no limited liability in those days it was perhaps prudent of them to close before any disaster struck. Amongst my papers is a mint, undated Bank of Ware pound note with the names of Edward and his two Cass partners inscribed upon it. It must have been saved by the family when the Bank closed down. After the closure of their bank, Edward Chuck and John Cass went into partnership together in their malting business and, according to Jack Parker who has written a history of banking in the County, a curious clause in their partnership deed prevented either of them from making a loan without the consent of the other. Perhaps, then, it was difficulties over a loan made by one partner (young George Cass?) without the knowledge of the others which caused them to decide to close down the Bank and made them so cautious over future business dealings. There are brass memorials in St. Mary's church to George Cass Senior (1752-1826) and his wife Judith and to John Cass (1787-1853) and his wife Sophia. Edward was also a partner in a wholesale lead and glass business in London with Thomas Meakin and John King. He also owned a mining property, which I suppose was probably a lead mine. When Thomas Meakin died, Edward and John King had a disagreement with the Executor over the value of the deceased's share in the business. This boiled over into a court case which was heard in Chancery in April 1844[11]. The dispute was settled with Edward being instructed to pay about £5,200 to Thomas Meakin's estate. The indenture does not indicate whether it was Edward and his partner who won the argument, or the Executor, or whether a balance was struck between the two competing claims. Neville Chuck (no relation as far back as we have been able to go) who is researching all the Chucks in the County, has traced the existence of the firm of Chuck, King and Meakin of 10 Norton Folgate and 3 Spital Square and the earliest reference he found was in a Directory for 1817. By 1839 a third address, 9 Kingsland Road SE12, had also been acquired. In the City of London Poll Book for 1833, Liverymen listed include Edward Chuck, Brewer, of Spital Square and Edward Chuck, Plumber, of Norton Folgate, so it looks as if Edward was listed twice. By 1866 the firm was known as Chuck, Locket and Co., trading as cast lead merchants, oil, colours, zinc and iron tube merchants. By this date Edward was dead, so if there was still a Chuck in the firm, it must have been one of his nephews, Joseph or Silas. The firm was still in business in 1955, trading in Finsbury, but l could not find it listed in the 1988 Trade Telephone Directory. Edward eventually became a County Magistrate and was a liberal supporter of London and local charities, particularly local schools, as he was very interested in education. As well as all this, he farmed four farms to the north of Ware, which lay to each side of the area of The Round House and Fanhams Hall. They were Moles Farm, Mackhouse Farm, Noah's Ark Farm and Miller's Farm, which each consisted of a homestead and a mixture of arable and grass land. According to his obituary, [8] Edward was a go-ahead farmer who enthusiastically introduced all the new modern fanning techniques to his farms. High farming, which was embraced by progressive farmers at that date, involved improving the land with under-drainage and using the new artificial fertilizers to produce heavier yields. Superior breeds of livestock were introduced and new well-constructed outbuildings provided to house them. The steam threshing machine (the object of so much dismay and hatred amongst the farm workers) was the main mechanical invention which Edward would probably have introduced and if he was really enthusiastic, he might have invested in a horse-drawn reaper in the last few years of his life. Edward's obituary also mentioned that the late Lord Leicester was a friend of his and suggests that it was his influence that gave Edward his interest in the fine arts. What the obituary did not point out was that the first Earl of Leicester was in fact Thomas William Coke of Holkham Hall, Norfolk, a well-known pioneer of progressive farming. It must have been the mutual interest in farming that brought the two men together in the first place and Edward would have learned a great deal from the Earl (who was only raised to the peerage near the end of his life), especially if he was invited to visit Holkham Hall. Apart from any possible private visits, the annual sheep-shearing gatherings at the Hall became famous and Edward may well have attended one or more of these events, which were always followed by lavish dinner parties for up to 700 guests. The last of these gatherings was held in 1821 and they were the forerunners of the later County Agricultural Shows. Sheep-rearing must certainly have been one of Edward's fanning activities (Lord Leicester had championed the Southdown breed), because in 1835 [12] an unfortunate labourer, Edward Saunders, was found guilty of stealing a sheep from Edward Chuck and was sentenced to transportation for life, a victim of the severe justice meted out in those days. One wonders whether Edward, as a reputedly kindly man, agreed with such drastic punishment and whether he too sent unlucky prisoners off to the other side of the world for life (or to their untimely death in transit) in the course of his duties as a Magistrate. I believe that John and Ann Chuck had only been able to provide their children with a very limited education, but all of them seem to have grown up industrious and energetic - typical members of the burgeoning Victorian middle class. Edward prided himself on being a self-made man who had reached a position of prominence and respect in the town through his own industry and perseverance. His frank manner and his kindly disposition made him popular throughout the town and in his younger days he was well known for his fine singing voice. As mentioned in his obituary, Edward had many friends in London and elsewhere, as well as in his home town and was a welcome guest at their homes. It was at the house of one of these friends that he met the famous sculptor, Sir Francis Chantrey — at Holkham Hall quite probably. The sculptor was a regular visitor to Holkham in the 1820's and 1830's and sculpted a bust of Thomas Coke. Chantrey was almost the same age as Edward and, like him, began life in humble circumstances. In spite of his fame, he never lost his natural, boisterous nature and forthright turn of speech. I would think he and Edward got along together famously. Chantrey specialised in busts of famous men and in memorials to the dead. One can see various memorials in Westminster Abbey and St. Pauls and his charming memorial to two little sisters, lying as if asleep on a couch, in Lichfield Cathedral. Through the influence of such friends Edward acquired a great interest in the fine arts and I believe he gathered together a little collection of paintings and sculpture, including apiece by Chantrey. When an appeal was launched to restore St. Mary' s Church in 1848, Edward headed the subscription list with a donation of £100. The final cost of the restoration was almost £6,000, of which £1,500 was spent on the interior. As well as his cash donation, Edward also presented two stained glass windows to the church - a suitable gift from a wholesale lead and glass merchant. The east window in the chancel is dedicated with a Latin inscription to his parents, John and Ann Chuck (photograph on page 11). It is a bright, richly coloured five-light window depicting the Crucifixion and the Passion, in a design by the prolific Victorian artist William Wailes of Newcastle, who had studied with Pugin. At the time it was declared to be, "... the best specimen of modern painted glass in existence." The Victorian taste in stained glass has gone out of fashion since then, but both windows are still in their original positions in the church - Edward had also donated the small west window in the tower. Edward met his death hi 1852 through an accident which was reported at length in the Herts. Mercury. [13] Apparently, he was driving from his home to his farm at Noah's Ark at 7 a.m. on Tuesday 2nd November in a chaise, accompanied by a carpenter by the name of Hollingsworth, for whom he was seeking work. They travelled from the High Street via Crib Lane into High Oak Lane, where they met a cart drawn by two horses coming the other way. The lane was very narrow, so the cart pulled in to the side to let the chaise through. Unfortunately, before the chaise was quite clear, the horse swerved and knocked into the cart. The shafts of the chaise snapped and, when the horse walked on, the chaise fell forward tipping both men out. The carpenter's fall was broken by the dashing board but Edward fell heavily on his right knee, smashing the bones badly. Hollingsworth fetched a chair from the nearest cottage to seat his employer on and then set off back to Ware to fetch Dr. McNab. It must have been a long, cold wait for Edward on that early November morning, whilst Hollings worth ran all the way back down the hill for help, but no doubt the cottager's wife would have brought a warm blanket to wrap round him and stayed with him until Dr. McNab arrived. He came as fast as he could in his closed carriage and took Edward back to his own house next door to Edward' s in the High Street, because Edward did not want to alarm Elizabeth. There he examined the knee carefully and then called in Dr. Davis for a second opinion. They decided that the smashed knee must be amputated and so they telegraphed to a London surgeon, Mr. Solly. The news of the accident may have been kept from Elizabeth's knowledge, but I am sure Susanna and the rest of the family soon heard about it and hurried round to see what they could do to help. The newspaper report commends Edward' s coolness of mind and the calm manner in which he gave orders for the preparations for his operation, almost as if it was all for someone else rather than for himself. He was very thoughtful for his invalid wife and insisted that his accident was to be kept secret from her until the operation was over and he also made a declaration that no blame for the accident could be attached to the driver of the cart. It is strange that, in spite of the calmness he showed over the arrangements for the operation, Edward never thought to mention his Will to his family, or where it could be found, if necessary. Mr. Solly arrived in the early afternoon, Edward gave his consent to the operation and it was performed at 7 p.m. with the use of chloroform. Mr. Solly must have been quite an advanced-thinking surgeon to have used chloroform at this date. It had been discovered in France some years back, but was not used as an anaesthetic in England until 1847. Many people, including some of the clergy, were against its use, particularly in childbirth. They quoted Genesis, "In sorrow shall thou bring forth children." Many doctors still believed it increased the danger of death, but in fact the use of chloroform decreased the mortality rate by fifty per cent, thanks to the lessening of post-operative shock. On the other hand, doctors had not yet discovered antiseptics, so deaths from septicaemia still occurred, whether chloroform had been used, or not. The year following Edward Chuck's death, Queen Victoria used chloroform for the birth of her eighth child and after her encouraging example it very quickly became standard practice. After his operation, Edward seemed to be doing well at first, but "... unfavourable symptoms supervened, arising it was believed from internal injuries" and he gradually sank, eventually dying at twelve o'clock, two days after the accident A post mortem was held and this was also reported at length by the newspaper. The opinion seemed to be that the chaise was very old and the shafts must have been in rather poor condition. It was also reported that it had been found that Edward was suffering from an 'organic disease' and would have died shortly in any event. The driver of the cart was exonerated from any blame for the accident. The following week [14] the paper reported that the funeral was attended by friends from London as well as by the people of Ware and that music by Handel and Mendelssohn was played. The nearest male relatives attending the service were listed as Joseph Chuck and Charles Cass and the other relatives present were Joseph Chuck Junior, Silas Chuck, Mr. Cowell, Henry Page, T.B. Adams, George Cass and William Flack. Friends included Mr. W.H. Whitbread, the Hon. Thomas Trevor, John Courage Junior, Edward Courage and another Courage brother. Edward was buried in St. Mary's churchyard under a simple black stone slab. Later. Elizabeth replaced this with a stone sarcophagus on rather ugly claw feet, standing atop a plinth, on which was the following inscription: - "This tomb was erected by his sorrowing widow. He was a dutiful son, a kind husband, a considerate master and an.... (illegible). Having raised himself to prominence by his industry he secured the esteem and respect of all who knew him by his genuine upright and benevolent character. When suddenly called from the world he met the summons with Christian fortitude, calmly resigning his soul into the hands of God and dying as he had lived, in charity with all men." The list of chief mourners at Edward's funeral was quite helpful in sorting out some of the family connections. Only the men were listed, which was a pity because a list of the women as well would have been even more helpful, but I do not believe women often attended funerals in those days. Apart from brother Joseph and his twin sons Joseph and Silas, there were Mr. Cowell and Mr. Adams who were the husbands of two of Joseph's daughters and Henry Page who was the husband of Anne Collins - I shall be dealing with the Page family later. I have not been able to trace with certainty where Mr. William Flack fits in, except that David Perman told me he had come across a rich William Chuck who died intestate in about 1831. His mailings in Star Lane and other properties were divided up between his two married daughters, one of whom was a Mrs. Sarah Ann Flack. My suggestion is that rich William Chuck could be the youngest brother of Edward's father John Chuck and therefore Edward's uncle. This would mean Mrs. Flack was Edward's cousin and it would account for her husband's name amongst the list of relatives. Much later, a family diary mentions the death of old Mr. William Flack at the venerable age of ninety-six in 1886.
Edward Chuck's tomb in the old burial ground, behind the war memorial in Baldock Street. Edward had made a proper Will in 1823, which was drawn up by a friend who was evidently a lawyer. The friend subsequently died. By 1841, this Will no longer reflected Edward's wishes and then some crisis occurred which forced him to make a new, hurried, home-made Will. The wording suggests Edward was ill and thought he might die at any minute, but that if he was spared, he would draw up another proper Will in due course. He made the Will in his 'counting house' (the old bank premises?) with his clerk, E. Mumford and two women servants as witnesses and it was written down on the bottom of the same document as the 1823 Will. Edward had an after-thought, but he had run out of space and so had to write the last clause across the other writing. It seems that Elizabeth knew nothing about all this. Edward must have wanted to spare her any undue worry - he probably did not wish her to realise how ill he was. In the event, Edward recovered, but he never got around to seeing a solicitor and drawing up another proper Will. When Edward finally died in November 1852, his Will was not discovered at first. Perhaps only his private rooms were searched and nobody thought to look amongst his business papers. Edward was deemed to have died intestate, so Elizabeth, as his widow, found herself Administrator of her husband's considerable estate. Bearing in mind the state of her health, this must have caused dismay all round. A month later, perhaps when Edward's office was being cleared out, the old 1823 Will, with the 1841 amended Will on the bottom, turned up. Mr. Mumford, Edward's retired clerk, was then brought in and he swore an Affidavit to the effect that the 1841 version was genuine, thus revoking the intestacy. In his home-made Will Edward had left his wife an income of £500 a year for life (a very comfortable sum in those days) but he bequeathed the whole of the remainder of his estate to his sister and his two brothers "share and share alike" - apart from his mining property, which he left to his "... dear godson, Edward Courage, son of John and Susan Courage of Dulwich". But William Chuck had already died back in 1845, so this meant that Susanna Collins and Joseph Chuck inherited half Edward's estate each. Since Edward had failed to appoint any Executor in his Will, the two Residuary Legatees, Susanna and Joseph, were now the persons entitled to the administration of the estate and Elizabeth was relieved of any duties in the matter. Now all the responsibility fell jointly upon Susanna and Joseph. Susanna, like Elizabeth, would have had no wish to take on the managing of the various businesses at the age of 78, although I believe she was a very capable woman. Joseph, on the other hand, was very eager to take over all the malting side for himself and his sons and I believe that Edward's Will was the cause of a bitter quarrel which developed between Joseph and his sons on the one side, and Susanna and the rest of the family - Elizabeth Chuck, Susanna's children and her son-in-law Henry Page - on the other. The most obvious reason for this quarrel would have been disagreement over the disposal of Edward's estate. Edward had decreed that it should be divided equally between his brother and sister, share and share alike. This meant that they each inherited half of everything, including all the properties, lands and businesses and the goods and chattels. Naturally Susanna would not wish to get involved in business matters, so negotiations had to take place and possibly this is what could have caused bad feeling between the two. It is clear from both Susanna's and Joseph's Wills, that Susanna sold her share in many of the properties and businesses, including, evidently, the lead and glass merchants, to Joseph and Joseph in return sold his share in the house at 87 High Street, including the mailings behind it and Dr. McNab's house as well, to Susanna. I think the widowed Elizabeth continued to live at 87 High Street until her death in 1860, although, as soon as Susanna had negotiated its ownership with Joseph, she made a gift of the house to her daughter Anne, for her and her husband Henry Page to have as their home. The property with its maltings and outbuildings was valued at £5,000 and this sum was to be deducted from Anne's share of her mother's estate at Susanna's death. However, I do not think the Pages moved into the house until after Elizabeth's death, though Henry took over the running of the maltings immediately, in later years, Dr. McNab' s house became Henry Page & Co offices (see the cover photograph). The sale of the businesses between Susanna and Joseph seems to me to have gone through quite quickly, because a codicil to Joseph's Will of 1852 and dated 27th March 1853, stated that he had that day completed the purchase of part of his late brother's estate. A second codicil to Susanna's 1852 Will, dated 25th May 1853, states she had made an agreement with her brother Joseph on the 16th February to' convey my share and interest in the several estates' to him and she now appointed trustees to make sure that this transaction would still go through if she were to die before it was completed — that sounds as if she was suffering from some illness at that time. She made similar arrangements regarding her purchase of Joseph's share and interest in 87 High Street and the buildings connected with it. For this reason, I am not entirely convinced that the disposal of Edward Chuck's properties was the reason for the bitter quarrel, even if though it does seem the most obvious. If it was something connected with his Will, Edward would have been most upset to feel he had been the cause of family discord. Although administration of Edward's estate had been granted in February 1853, so that Susanna and Joseph were able to dispose of 'the goods and chattels and credits' of the estate, some of the 'personal estate and effects' remained un-administered until 1866 - well after both Joseph and Susanna were dead. It finally fell to Susanna's Executor, Henry Page, to tie up the loose ends. I think this could possibly be a clue to the cause of the family feud, but I will come back to this in the next chapter. It appears from Susanna's Will that she had entered into negotiations to buy a copyhold property in Baldock Street shortly before Edward met with his accident. She completed the purchase shortly after Edward' s death and gave the house as a gift to her eldest daughter Susanna, although she too moved into the house. The value of the house was £200 and this was to be taken into account when her daughter's share of her estate was apportioned at her mother's death. It looks as if 'young' Susanna had already arranged to leave her uncle's house before his death, probably because her mother was getting old and was needing assistance herself. Young Susanna's life seems to have been spent entirely looking after others, until her own old age. She continued to live in the house in Baldock Street, with only servants for company, after her mother's death in 1865, and until her own death twenty years later. Although the house was old, with small rooms, it contained at least three bedrooms, two living rooms and kitchen and what the family called 'the book room'. There was a little garden at the back containing flowers and rose bushes, soft fruits, plum and cherry trees. Thanks to her brother Edward's Will, Mrs. Susanna Collins died a wealthy woman and her estate was first valued at 'under £60,000', but then amended to 'under £50,000' — a very different state of affairs from the struggles of her early married life. In spite of her sudden wealth, she continued to live quietly in the modest little house in Baldock Street, but was able to provide in a handsome manner for her various surviving children and grand-children, both during her life and in her Will. She died on the 17th August 1865 and was buried in Ware Cemetery next to the grave of her son Edward Collins, who had died two years previously.
Chapter IV After her husband's death Elizabeth continued to live in the big house in the High Street, but 'young' Susanna was now living with her mother in the house in Baldock Street which had been bought for her. Poor Elizabeth must have felt greatly alarmed in September 1856 [15] when fire broke out in the stables of what were now Henry Page' s makings right behind 87 High Street. Two fire engines raced to the scene, Unity and Town. A certain amount of confusion ensued, with too many well-meaning people milling around and issuing conflicting instructions. A high wall topped by an iron fence stood between the buildings and the river and it was some time before the hoses could be brought into action. Even then, the hose of the Town fire engine burst twice, and the fire was in danger of spreading to other buildings. Henry Page had £2,000 worth of malt stored on the premises, and at his suggestion part of the roof of his stables was cut away, which finally halted the progress of the fire: Elizabeth had no more to fear. The fire had started in a light cart and it was suspected that an arsonist was at work, as there had already been a series of suspicious fires. Only the following week yet another fire broke out in a barn at Canons, a big house on the edge of town, lately the property of the bankrupt Samuel Adams, and recently bought by Charles Cass, a relative of Elizabeth's. I am tempted to suggest the arson attacks could have been part of the family feud, but that is really too far fetched! A more likely cause of unrest in the town was the collapse of the Hertford and Ware Bank two months previously, which I describe in the next chapter. In 1852 the old Free Grammar School in the churchyard was in a very dilapidated state and the vicar had great ideas about repairing it and upgrading it with a host of new ideas. The Master of the school had just resigned and the Rev. Charles Lilley, who already ran his own little private school in the town, was appointed as his successor. He was permitted to take his private pupils with him to the Free Grammar School. Mr. Lilley was enthusiastic about the vicar's ideas, but the Feofees (Trustees) of the town's charities, which included the school, did not want to spend money on improvements. They were suspicious of the vicar's high-church leanings, and in the event, nothing was done, so Mr. Lilley had to make do with the old ramshackled buildings. He could not afford to pay for the repairs himself, which the Trustees expected him to do out of his small salary. The lean-to roof was very low and leaking, the floor was patched, the furniture falling to pieces. The ground floor of the building, which had once housed a girls' school, was by now let to a brewer who stored barrels of beer there. However, the vicar did not give up hope, and in 1857 he approached Elizabeth Chuck and suggested she should endow a new school as a memorial to her late husband. Edward had owned a plot of land on Musley Hill, so that may be where Elizabeth decided to build. On the other hand, Samuel Adams's Musley estate had been sold off for building land to pay off the creditors in the bankruptcy case, so perhaps Elizabeth purchased a plot at the auction. The vicar's plan was that the Chuck Memorial School and the old Free Grammar School should be combined hi the nice new buildings, in their healthy position near park and woodland, and the old buildings in the middle of the town sold off to provide a repair fund for the new school. In the summer of 1857 [16] a meeting of the Trustees of the Free Grammar School was convened in the Vestry room, and also present were the Rev. Charles Lilley and a newspaper reporter. The first part of the meeting was taken up with an objection by Dr. Butcher to the presence of the reporter. Dr. Butcher appears to have had an axe to grind against the press, but the excuse he offered was that the reporter was not a Trustee. Although Mr. Lilley was not a Trustee either, Dr. Butcher did not object to him attending the meeting. Joseph Chuck Junior was in the chair, and after some discussion he decreed that, since one Trustee had objected to the presence of the press, the reporter would have to withdraw, even though none of the others had offered any objection. The meeting then got down to business and Dr. McNab, who still lived next door to Elizabeth and was a good family friend, put forward her proposition for combining the two schools. Some of the eight points in Elizabeth's plan were: - Mr. Lilley should be the Master of the new school, which was to be called Ware United Grammar and Middle School, and ten free places were to be offered to poor boys, as in the old school. The free boys were to be instructed in Latin, French, Elementary Maths, Linear Drawing and Vocal Music, and not just confined to Reading and Writing as at present. The only stipulation that Elizabeth imposed in return for her beneficence was that, in addition to the present Trustees (who were charged with the management of all the charities in the town) there should be a certain number of Trustees nominated by herself to share in the government of the school. Elizabeth's only other request was that a plaque should be erected at the school in memory of her husband. The meeting was then adjourned for two weeks, to consider the proposition. You would have thought that the Trustees would have jumped at the chance to move their pupils to the fine new building, and to allow them to take advantage of all the additional benefits that Elizabeth's proposition offered. But no! There was full attendance at the next meeting, chaired by Mr. Hollingsworth, when Dr. McNab proposed the adoption of the scheme. But then Dr. Butcher stood up and put forward an amendment to the effect that Elizabeth's proposal should be rejected"... the terms of which the same is made being such as would entirely defeat the intent of the donor of the present charity, and would place all the other charities under the control of Mrs. Chuck or her nominees." Believe it or not, the scheme was out-voted by nine to six! Joseph Chuck was one of those who sided with Dr. Butcher, whilst Henry Page voted with Dr. McNab for the adoption of the scheme. The Herts. Mercury printed a scathing article condemning the ridiculous decision, and asking how sensible business men could allow themselves to be influenced by one wilful man who had suggested there were secret and malignant designs behind Elizabeth' s offer. The newspaper begged the misguided Trustees to change their minds and "... make atonement for the offence they have, perhaps unconsciously, offered to an amiable lady, in the most uncivil resolution which appears in our columns today - and heal many a wound which must remain unhealed so long as they submit to the perverse guidance by which they have in this instance been misled." The following week Dr. Butcher answered the attack with a long letter, which the Mercury dutifully published. He defended his attitude and explained he did not mean to insult Mrs. Chuck, whom he described as"... a lady already so far advanced in years and infirmities that her most intimate friends have difficulty in holding conversation with her, save by writing." He declared that he foresaw the new Trustees would not be selected by Mrs. Chuck herself, but only submitted for her approval. "The greater number of them would be selected from one sect and from one party, and in sufficient numbers to SWAMP the power of the present ones; and in that case it is very obvious to what use the present charities would be devoted." The newspaper reacted with another long article denouncing Dr. Butcher and stating he was in error in assuming that Mrs. Chuck's Trustees would have any power to meddle with any charity other than the one school. There were also two letters in support of Elizabeth's plan — the one from the Vicar declared that he believed Dr. Butcher was opposed to the school plan because be believed it was to be used for Jesuitical purposes. The affair had turned into an undignified power struggle between the high-church middle classes and the non-conformist businessmen of the town. So, in spite of all the fuss, Dr. Butcher had worked his influence on the Trustees well, and the decision stood. The old Grammar School remained in its ramshackled premises, and the Chuck Memorial School went forward alone up on Musley Hill. A stone commemorating Edward Chuck was placed over the entrance to the new school, which was opened on the 6th September 1857 with twenty-one private and ten free pupils on the roll. Mr. Lilley must have been extremely disappointed to find he was still doomed to the old rickety schoolhouse, but he had also been promised the mastership of the new school, so somehow he found himself in charge of both! He could not resign from the Free School without losing a substantial sum of money from the bond he had had to deposit with the Trustees when he was appointed. It does not sound as if it was a very sensible arrangement, and the Grammar School suffered in consequence. Mr. Lilley only descended the hill occasionally to pay visits to the old school, and the teaching, such as it was, became the responsibility of an unqualified assistant. After an inspection of the Ware charity schools a couple of years later, [17] it was reported that conditions in the old Grammar School grew worse and worse. The boys seem to have learnt very little, except how to lift the loose floorboards and sneak into the storeroom below! In contrast, the Chuck Memorial School was held in a lofty hall, well warmed and ventilated. There were many maps hanging around the room and the desks were firm and in good condition. The scholars were taught Writing, Bookkeeping, English Composition, English History, Elementary Maths, Linear Drawing, Latin and French. Some of the pupils were boarders and were housed with Mr. Lilley at the Master's Lodge, near the school on Musley Hill. Pupils were prepared for entry to the Universities, the Army and Navy, the Civil Services and for Engineering and Mercantile life. Some years later another attempt to merge the old Free School with Elizabeth's was again thwarted. Then, at last, in 1890, on the retirement of Charles Lilley, The Chuck Memorial School was amalgamated with the Free Grammar School and Wareside Grammar School and became the Ware Grammar School. Elizabeth's building on Musley Hill was extended and refurbished to house the newly named school. Although the united grammar school outgrew the premises in later years, the building has housed one type of school or another almost continuously to this day. At present it is a flourishing Infant School, and because it is in a preservation area, it has recently had its tower and school bell restored to their former glory. Elizabeth Chuck died in 1860 and was buried with her husband in the churchyard, and her name was inscribed on the other side of the ugly stone sarcophagus. It is now one of the few tombs left standing in its original position in the churchyard. Joseph Chuck, who was Susanna and Edward's youngest brother, had been born in 1786; he and his wife Rebecca lived in the High Street (Land Row) and had seven children—five daughters and twin sons, Joseph and Silas. One little girl, Ann, died at the age of fifteen months. The two eldest girls, Emma and Elizabeth, married into the Cowell family, Ruth married Thomas Bell Adams, and Martha was the wife of Benjamin Godfrey. In 1853, [18] shortly after he had bought out Susanna's share in their late brother Edward's properties, Joseph lent his sons £15,000 to start up in business on their own account in part of his original High Street premises, which the twins rented from him. They were to be equal partners in the business in every respect. Although Edward and Susanna both attended the parish church, Joseph worshipped at the Congregational (now United Reform) Church just behind the High Street. Soon after Elizabeth was planning and building and arguing with the Trustees about her school, it was decided to erect a new Congregational church, and also to provide a school next door to it. Joseph offered to pay half the cost of the new church and the whole of the cost of the new school. Other members of his family also gave generous donations. The cost of building the new church was estimated to be between £ 1.500 and £1,600, but in the usual way of things it actually cost more like £2,000 by the time it was finished. I do not know what the school cost The foundation stone of the church was laid by the Lord Mayor of London on the 25th November 1858 on a nasty cold day, and Joseph attended the ceremony. The Herts. Mercury stated that the church was built in Norman style, with columns copied from 'some of the oldest and finest ecclesiastical structures in the land.' The window at the head of the left aisle, showing the Raising of Lazarus, was donated by Joseph, the window at the head of the right aisle was donated by his wife Rebecca, depicting the phrase 'Feed my Sheep', and a wheel window over the entrance door was presented by Joseph Junior and Silas Chuck. The windows still survive in the church, but Joseph's is nearly completely hidden by the organ pipes now. The school buildings, which were built in Norman style to complement the church, have recently been sold and adapted to form four small houses, but the memorial stone commemorating Joseph's benefaction can still be seen on the corner. It reads: - "The Corner Stone of these Schools, which were built at the exclusive cost of Jos. Chuck E. of Widbury House, was laid by R.A. Fletcher DD on the 8th day of February 1860." Joseph retired from business early in 1859 and moved to Widbury House, just to the east of the town, but unfortunately he died before he had time to settle in. At the date of his retirement, Joseph had made a long Settlement on his sons, releasing all his freehold land and property to them, but arranging a very comfortable income for himself and Rebecca during their lifetime. His 1852 Will had made provisions for an income for each of his four married daughters as well. In fact, Elizabeth Cowell had already died, and her share was to go to her three young children. Joseph made a new Will in March 1859, very shortly before his death, which provided for Rebecca during her lifetime, and left the residue to his sons after her death. Unfortunately, Joseph died too soon to see the completion of the church and school he had generously endowed, and Rebecca, also, died the following year. Like his brother Edward, Joseph Chuck seems to have had other interests over and above those of his business. I see that Mr. J. Chuck was one of the subscribers to the second edition of Sir Henry Chauncy's 'Historical Antiquities of Hertfordshire', which was published in the 1820's, to the tune of two copies, in fact. Other subscribers to this edition included Mr. Rack and Mr. Cowell of Ware. I do not know how much the cost of living changed in the twenty years after Joseph's death, but I found a book on Victorian life which quoted the weekly pay required for various classes to live on in 1880. A lower middle-class family living in a small suburban house with one maid would require £3 to £5 per week, and an upper-middle-class family in a spacious house with two or three servants could manage comfortably on £10 to £15 per week. The income Joseph arranged for himself and Rebecca in his Settlement was £4621 Os. per annum, which would have given him a weekly income of nearly £9. It would appear that a retired couple, with all their children settled and provided for, could have lived extremely well on that sum. Joseph was the first member of the family to be buried in the new cemetery, and not in the churchyard. The spot chosen was on the right-hand side of the cemetery, near the chapel and the entrance gates. When other members of the family died - Susanna Collins, daughter Susanna, Edward Collins, Henry Page and Anne Page - they were all buried close together, but on the left side of the cemetery, near the back, which was just about as far away from Joseph as it was possible to be. This may of course merely be coincidence, but I think it could indicate the deep rift in the family. In Susanna's obituary in 1865 it mentioned proudly that she was the sister of the eminent maltster, Edward Chuck, but no mention whatsoever was made of Joseph. The same thing happened again, thirty-five years later, with her daughter Anne Page's obituary in 1900. It was for these reasons, and because of the affair of the School Trustees, that I suspected a coolness between members of the family, long before I found out the details of the administration of Edward Chuck's Will, which suggested a possible reason for the disagreement. And later on, when I received a copy of Susanna's son Edward's Will, I found a curious clause which points to a very deep rift between Joseph and the rest of the family. Edward began his Will, "This is the last Will and testament of me Edward Collins of Great Amwell in the County of Hertford heretofore known by the name of Edward Chuck Collins ..... etc." Since the family were obviously proud to be associated with Edward Chuck, I can only think that Edward Collins was repudiating the name' Chuck' in order to disassociate himself from Joseph. In 1858, when Edward made his Will, Edward Chuck was dead but Joseph was still alive. What ever could have caused Edward such deep distress that he felt he must cut Chuck out of his name? Although the division of the properties and businesses, as stipulated in Edward Chuck's Will, seems the most obvious cause of the family feud, I am still not entirely convinced that it is in fact so. I grant that the plum of the inheritance must surely have been 87 High Street with the mailings behind it, and Joseph could well have cast hungry eyes at that, but he failed to receive it as part of his share. If it were not for the codicils both Joseph and Susanna made to their Wills, I would accept that this must have been the cause of the feud. But, in fact, it seems that the division of the businesses and properties went through quite quickly. That does not seem to me to suggest that they were locked in a bitter argument at that time. Of course, I may be wrong - Susanna's codicil might have been made to ensure that her wishes were carried out if she died, and Joseph could not use her death as an excuse to re-negotiate the share-out - but as Joseph himself had made a similar codicil, I do not think this was so. Another reason for thinking the feud might have developed later than 1853 is the fact that Edward Collins did not make his Will repudiating the name Chuck until June 1858. So, supposing I am right, what could the feud have been all about? Well, I have a suggestion to make. Although Edward Chuck's Will had provided Elizabeth with a comfortable income, she was left without the ownership of her own home or of its contents, which included, if you remember, a collection of works of art. If Edward's Will had not been made in such a hurry, I am sure Elizabeth would never have been left in such an awkward position. Although, in the event, Susanna gained possession of the house and gave it to her daughter, Elizabeth continued to live there until her death, as was only fair and proper. But supposing Joseph had wanted to get his hands on some of those works of art whilst Elizabeth was still alive, and disputed whether they formed part of the property? I am sure Susanna would have been very indignant at the thought of the house being stripped whilst the old lady was still living there, and would have refused permission. Nothing could have been done without the consent of both Administrators. Once they had begun to quarrel over the matter and feelings became heated, they may never have been able to agree on what should happen to the art collection, hence the fact that the distribution of some of Edward's personal effects was still unresolved at Susanna's death. Would this perhaps have been enough reason for Edward Collins to cut out all mention of Chuck from his name? It looks as if, in the end, all the works of art stayed with the house in the possession of Henry and Anne Page. Then there is the matter of the Chuck Memorial School: Joseph sided with the Trustees against Elizabeth. That could have been genuinely because he was a non-conformist, or it could have been spite against Elizabeth and the rest of the family. Perhaps Joseph decided to endow his own school, rather than support Elizabeth's, in order to vie with the rest of the family, and this caused the bad feelings. One other important event that occurred around the time we are talking about was the collapse of the Hertford and Ware Bank in 185 6, which I describe in the next chapter. It is possible that some aspect of the troubles caused by the failure of the Bank could have triggered off the family feud. This is a very long shot and I have no evidence for any such thing. I describe in my second book how Henry Page got out of his difficulties, with money which must have come from Edward Chuck's estate. On his side, Joseph could not have faired too badly in the collapse, since he was able to contribute so handsomely to the building of the Congregational church and school only two years later. Anyway, I can only make suggestions as to what all the row could have been about, and readers will have to make up their own minds. It could have been about something entirely different, of which we know nothing, and even something which seems quite trivial to the eyes of an outsider, but which loomed large to the family - so that is where I shall have to leave the matter. Although Joseph Junior and Silas were equal partners in their own business, and inherited that of their father in equal shares. Silas seems much more of a shadowy figure. In the 1841 Census, Joseph had been listed as a maltster and Silas as a clerk, so it looks as if Joseph took care of the practical side of the malting and Silas dealt with the paper work. I have always had the feeling that Silas was less robust than his brother, though I have no real evidence for this. By 1870 only Joseph is mentioned in the Hertfordshire Directory, and Silas had got out of the business and moved away from Ware to East Sheen. He and his wife Susan had four children, three boys with the traditional Chuck names of William, Joseph and Edward, and a daughter, Agnes. One wonders if Silas moved away from Hertfordshire for his health, or whether it was merely that there was no longer sufficient business to sustain two families, or whether perhaps he and Joseph had quarrelled. Joseph and his wife Emma lived in the High Street for most of their married life, and had two boys and three girls. Joseph followed in the family tradition of service to the town. He was a Ware Guardian, Chairman of the Local Board of Health and of the Burial Board for many years, he was one of the chief promoters of the building of the Com Exchange, which was erected in an effort to revive the declining corn trade in Ware, and he played a large part in instigating the town Waterworks. When the Ware Volunteers were formed, he was one of the first to join and, after a spell as a private, became an ensign and subsequently a lieutenant.
Joseph Chuck Jnr., from a photograph in the possession of Ware Town Council—from 1869 until 1885 he was a member of the Council's predecessor, the Local Board of Health. However, by the time Joseph's children had grown up, the Chuck family were no longer concerned with malting - Frederick became a solicitor and Albert a clerk in an insurance company. Either the business folded up or Joseph must have sold out when he retired in about 1885, and so there were no Chucks left in the malting business. Joseph, like Silas, moved away from Ware when he retired, and his death was reported in Tottenham in December 1901, although the funeral took place in Ware. Joseph was buried in the cemetery next to his father and mother, but his monument is of poor stone and the inscription is almost impossible to read. There is a photograph of Joseph hanging in the Ware Council Offices showing him as a stern-looking old man with a long white beard and a strong hooked nose.
Chapter V THE COLLAPSE OF THE HERTFORD AND WARE BANK I became interested in the story of the collapse of the Hertford and Ware Bank when I started researching my family, as originally I thought it was the same Bank in which Edward Chuck had been a partner. Later I realised it was a totally different Bank, and the only relevance it had to my family was the fact that Henry Page had lost money in the collapse. Nevertheless, I found it a fascinating story. The closure of the Bank on the 22nd July 1856 came as a complete surprise and shock to everyone, according to the local newspaper. The Bank had been founded by a government contractor called William Christie who moved to Hertfordshire and went into partnership with George Cathrow in about 1800. In about 1813, a little after the death of William Christie, the Bank had been transferred into the hands of Samuel Adams senior, a malt factor who was the main factor for the Meux Reid brewery. Samuel Adams owned considerable property in Ware, including Fanhams Hall, which he rented out, and a big house outside the town called Canons, where he made his home. He died in 1850 and was succeed at the Bank by his nephew, Samuel Adams junior. My description of the ensuing events is gathered from the Herts. Mercury, [19] so in reading it one must bear in mind that newspapers can be somewhat unreliable, and are written as events unfold, without the benefit of hindsight. The townsfolk of Hertford had been rather surprised the previous week when they learned that Mr. Browning, the Manager of the branch of the Bank hi Hertford, was no longer connected with that establishment but had been appointed manager of a new branch of the Unity Bank which had just opened its doors down the road. The newspaper reports that the people of the town had not attached any great significance to this move, but I think some people must have had an inkling that all was not quite right. On Monday the 21st business at the Hertford branch carried on as usual. A local farmer, who already had a balance of £350 in his account, came into town and paid in another £150. On the other hand, a local tradesman who had been out of town all day rushed in hoping to pay in £350 as the clock struck four, but fortunately for him, the Bank had closed promptly. On Tuesday morning a little group of early birds were waiting outside the Bank at opening time, but the door remained shut. More people began to arrive, and alarm grew as time went on and the Bank remained closed and silent. Finally, wanting to know the worst, they knocked on the door, only to have their suspicions confirmed - the Bank had ceased to trade. No doubt similar scenes had been happening at the Ware branch of the Bank. There appeared to have been no particular run on the Bank and there had been no general falling off in the malting trade, so the collapse was totally unexpected, according to The Herts. Mercury. However, it was a time when banks around the country were failing, as banking was becoming too complex to be carried on by virtual amateurs. Rumours flew around and pessimists suggested there might only be a dividend of between 2s. and 5s. in the pound. The Herts. Mercury was more optimistic and professed faith in the owner of the Bank, Samuel Adams ... "There is nothing in the character of Mr. Samuel Adams to justify us in believing that since he succeeded to the Bank, and - according to report - to a considerable fortune, which we can hardly think has been dissipated in rash speculations, and which has certainly not been expended in riotous living. This being so, we are justified in hoping that there will be considerable funds, when they are made available, to meet the liabilities, and that the failure will not prove so disastrous as has been anticipated." Their faith was sadly misplaced. On the Wednesday, a Petition in Bankruptcy was served by Mr. Daniel Pack of Ware, who had deposited £ 1,000 in the Bank shortly before business had been suspended. In the following week's Herts. Mercury an indignant creditor wrote saying he had heard that there were certain individuals who had known of the threatened collapse in advance and had taken advantage of this by withdrawing their money. "Can it be possible", he fumed, "that men hitherto considered men of honour and integrity have indemnified themselves at the expense of their neighbours and thus not only hastened, but greatly increased the calamity?" The bankruptcy notice had been served on July 23rd and proceedings were fixed to commence exactly three months later. The Hertford Savings Bank, of which Samuel Adams was the treasurer, hastily reassured its customers that their money was perfectly safe in spite of being placed in the h Hertford and Ware Bank, and, indeed, on August 9th it was announced that the Savings Bank had received back in full all the money which had been deposited. Other creditors having first claim on the Bank included the Government, represented by the Collectors of Taxes and Excise, who had deposited public money in the Bank, followed by the Hertfordshire Militia and various religious societies in the County. It was announced on August 23rd that various properties belonging to Samuel Adams had been seized to meet the claims, and in the autumn three properties were put up for auction. The Collet Hall and Canons properties included various cottages, makings and parcels of land as well as the main residences, whilst Musley estate was sold for residential development. An auctioneer who was a creditor to the tune of £100, and whose son had lost a similar amount, anticipating that there would have to be an auction, had written to the Receivers begging that he should be appointed to conduct any such sale. He observed that he felt sure that the other auctioneers would understand if they were not chosen - it does not appear to have occurred to him that the other auctioneers might also be creditors themselves! The fact that certain creditors were given preferential treatment must have meant that the amount left to pay off the ordinary small creditors was considerably decreased. There were any sad tales of hardship circulating regarding unfortunate people to whom the collapse of the Bank spelt ruin. Tradesmen, farmers, clergymen and many others all suffered to a greater or lesser degree. It must have been the smallest savers who would have been hardest hit; people like the widow who lost the insurance money she had received on her husband' s death; the crippled school teacher who used her own investment interest to pay her rent; an invalid who lost his sole means of support; the orphan children of a well-to-do business man who lost their inheritance. Amongst the surviving papers is a letter written by Samuel Grice, a retired colour sergeant of the Hertfordshire Militia, who had placed his entire life savings of £70 in the Bank only four days before it collapsed. He recounted how he had a young family and how he was now in broken health after having served his country faithfully for twenty-two years, including thirteen spent in the East Indies. "I trust in the superior discernment and loyalty of the gentlemen of the jury that I will not lose all the dependence my poor family have in this world, but that I may receive an order through your kindness to draw my deposit in full." He ended his letter by pointing out hopefully that when the Bank of Tralee failed, every pensioner was paid in full. St. Mary's Church also found itself in difficulties, since a loan from the Board of Works had been taken out to carry out restoration work. This must refer to the 1848/50 restoration, when Edward Chuck donated the two stained glass windows. In December 1856 the parish found itself unable to pay the £277 which represented the annual repayment sum together with the interest due. Apart from £80 which could not be touched because it belonged to the Church Rate, they could only raise £30. Legal proceedings were threatened and the Vicar was forced to call for a special rate of 5d. in the pound to tide them over their difficulties. At the time of the crash, the Bank held £140 deposited by the Ware Union, and although some of this money was later recovered, the Overseer of the Workhouse agonised about the outstanding £66 in the course of his correspondence with the Poor Law Commission in London for months afterwards, praying that he would not have to account for the sum. It was not only Samuel Adams who went bankrupt. The business of another Ware maltster, William Cater, came to an abrupt halt after the fall of the Bank because he owed £9,800 in excise duty, which he was unable to pay. He was declared bankrupt and forced to sell everything — at least he claimed that he had. He raised some £3,000 through the sale of his effects and by calling on his sureties. Mr. Taylor, one of his sureties, refused to pay more than £150, although he had executed a bond on behalf of Mr. Cater for £25,000. Accordingly, he was also in trouble and a valuation of his property and goods was taken. They were valued at a little over £720 and Mr. Taylor was forced to pay up. Perhaps Mr. Taylor's reluctance to assist Mr. Cater was strengthened because he knew that Mr, Cater himself was not disclosing everything that he owned. Certainly, the authorities were suspicious, for they arrested Mr. Cater and had his house searched. They soon found a box stowed away in a cupboard which contained £3,175 in gold, as well as silver and bank notes. This was seized, of course, together with a quantity of plate, a life policy and various deeds and securities. Mr. Cater tried to claim that the money belonged to his sons and that they had won it on the horses. However, he was not believed and the luckless man spent eleven months in prison for fraudulent pretence before he was given his discharge. Samuel Adams's bankruptcy hearing at the Court of Bankruptcy in Basinghall Street began on the 15th January 1857, and was a very protracted, complicated affair involving various other matters which did not throw a very favourable light on Adams's character. One of the reasons that the hearings kept being adjourned was because of discrepancies in the books, with Adams sometimes altering the figures between hearings in an effort to present himself in a better light. By the beginning of 1857 a large proportion of Adams's assets had been sold, and they realised between £11,000 and £12,000. The liability to the creditors, however, was in the region of £20,000. As well as properties in Ware, Potten End and Bourne, he had been stripped of his household furniture, plate and wines, shares in various commercial concerns such as the Hertford and Welwyn Railway and the Unity Fire Office, his barge 'Mary Ann', all his malt and his live and dead stock. Forty of the creditors begged to be allowed to pay for their own separate enquiry into Adams's affairs because they felt that, although the Assignees and the Bank of England would do their duty, they did not have the same personal interest as the depositors. The Commissioner could only have allowed this request if it could have been shown that the Assignees had not made the fullest possible enquiry themselves. Another creditor objected to the fact that Adams was being paid £7 per week whilst the hearings continued, whereas he and his family could now only afford to live on bread and cheese. The Commissioner explained that Adams was only receiving the normal treatment for bankrupts and was not being specially favoured in any way. Another suspicious creditor questioned Adams closely about a certain large box of corn which he felt sure concealed other assets - he must have been thinking of the case of William Cater - but Adams firmly denied the charge. Apart from establishing Adams's exact financial position at the time of the crash, the main question which arose out of the prolonged enquiries was that of the post-nuptial Marriage Settlement, hi December 1854 Adams had settled a property worth £6,000 on his wife, and had thereafter spent several thousands of pounds on improvements. Adams claimed that he was solvent at the time that he made the Settlement, but doubt was now cast on this because it had later transpired that at that date he was awaiting the outcome of a court case in which he was involved. In the case of Kay -v- Johnson and Others, Adams had been involved with a dubious character called Captain Johnson, who had obtained large bills of exchange from a young heir. It was Adams and his Bank's subsequent involvement with Johnson and the B ills of Exchange which led to the court case. Adams must have known that if the case went against them, he would have to contribute £10,000 towards the £30,000 claimed by Kay. He did not declare this debt when making the Settlement on his wife, and now he insisted that he would still have been solvent, even taking this £10,000 into account. This was disputed by the Assignees in view of the precarious state of the finances of the Hertford and Ware Bank in the eighteen months which had elapsed between the Marriage Settlement and the collapse of the Bank. They filed a suit in Chancery to have the Settlement annulled, so that the property could be seized and the proceeds of sale used to pay the unfortunate creditors. In the meantime, the questioning continued and Adams wriggled on the hook, trying to put his wheeling and dealing in the least unfavourable light. A large sum of money which Adams had entered as personal and domestic expenses turned out in fact to have been a loan to Johnson. Adams explained that he had put it down to expenses because he did not wish his employees to know that he had lent Johnson such a large amount. It was stated at one point that Adams had a 'certain relationship' with Johnson, what ever that was supposed to mean - was there perhaps blackmail involved? After the truth of the loan to Johnson came out, Adams tried to cook the books again by showing a much higher loan to Johnson than was actually the case, in order to disguise the large sums he had lashed out on the property he had settled on his wife. Naturally, Johnson (himself by now a declared bankrupt) indignantly denied the higher figure, and Adams was forced to admit that his second story was untrue. In the Court of Chancery it was proved that Adams had made the Marriage Settlement in order to ensure that he kept something for himself if the Kay-v-Johnson case went against him. Of the two Trustees appointed to the Settlement, one declared that he had never acted under the Trust and was not even aware of its existence until the bankruptcy. The other gentleman was a solicitor from Southampton who had had professional dealings with Adams for a number of years. He now insisted that he had tried to dissuade Adams from making the Settlement, but Adams had replied that he was determined to save the estate in all events if the suit of Kay went against him. The Master of the Rolls then declared the Settlement fraudulent and void against the creditors. In his opinion, Adams was guilty of a double dishonesty, firstly in making the settlement, and secondly in spending large sums of money on the property. At this hearing, which took place in June 1858, judgement was deferred, and I have not discovered the end of this sorry tale. A dividend of 5s in the pound was declared in March 1859, but I could find no report of the judgement of the case in the local newspaper. If William Cater was imprisoned for eleven months for his misdemeanour, I would have thought Samuel Adams deserved a far longer sentence for all the misery he caused to so many innocent people. The Croft family legend has it that he debunked to Australia with a bag of gold. It certainly seems likely that he would disappear to some place where his history was not known, but whether he took himself off before judgement was passed in order to escape retribution, or whether he served his time and then emigrated, is a matter for conjecture. One thing surely - he would never have dared to show his face in Hertford or Ware again.
REFERENCES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Return to
Site, Material, and Design (C) 2002-2007 Tricia.Collins.Milne All Rights Reserved |
