High Country History Group

The East End Maternity Hospital was founded in 1884 as the Mother's Lying-in Hospital in Shadwell, an inner city area which lies between Wapping and Limehouse. In 1889 the hospital moved to Commercial Road and became known as the East End Mothers Home. By 1930 it had about 60 beds. The hospital was established for the treatment of poor married women during childbirth and also for the training of midwives and nurses.

At the outbreak of war in 1939, the hospital was closed and the authorities needed to find suitable premises in a safe location and Epping was considered such an area and Hill Hall, which at the time was owned by Edward, Lord Hay seemed an ideal building. Lord Hay agreed that part of Hill Hall could be used for the war effort and the servant’s wing was considered the most suitable part for the location of the maternity hospital.
The servant’s wing faced south-west and was two storeys high. The ground floor contained three main rooms and a storeroom, whilst the first floor contained seven bedrooms and a bathroom.
In September 1939, staff patients and equipment was moved from the east end to Hill Hall and the training school was also transferred following the approval of the Central Midwives Board. Provision was also needed for those expectant mothers who had been evacuated a suitable hostel was found at Spriggs Oak, Palmers Hill, in Epping, prior to their confinement at Hill Hall. Spriggs Oak which was offered by its owner, Councillor William Trent, a member of the Epping Urban District Council, consisted of a 3 storey building, with tennis court, croquet lawn.
An Evacuation Committee took charge of the running of the hostel on behalf of the council and it preparations made to accommodate between 30 and 35 people. A paid resident cook/superintendent was put in charge of the hostel, which opened on the 23 September 1939, the cost of running it being estimated at £1,100 per annum.
Meanwhile the Management Committee of the East End Maternity Hospital led by the Chairman, Lady Margaret Ebbisham, held a meeting at Hill Hall in late September where it was decided that Doctors would be allowed to send patients from the East End directly to Hill Hall for treatment.
With the ‘phoney war’ the expected air raids did not materialise and it was suggested to the Ministry of Health that the East End Maternity Hospital should re-open, which was agreed. However Hill Hall and Spriggs Oak continued to receive expectant mothers in the autumn and winter of 1939/1940.
Expectant mothers were expected to pay 1/6d per day towards their keep, and those experiencing financial problems being advised to seek help from the Ministry of Labour.
In November the Evacuation Committee braced themselves for an expected large influx of expectant mothers that were due to arrive in Epping under the Government evacuation scheme. Much effort was put in place to receive them, but the mothers did not arrive and the committee later expressed its annoyance at the situation.
Relationships between the Evacuation Committee and the Management Committee were also strained, due to the arrival of a number of expectant mothers who arrived at Hill Hall from the East End and were taken to Spriggs Oak. As none of these women were part of the official Government scheme, they were deemed to be ‘late evacuees’ and none were asked to make any contribution to their keep. Of the six women who arrived on the 12th December, three were unable to pay the 1/6d for food. When the matter was referred to the Ministry of Labour, an official said he was unable to treat them as evacuees and they therefore did not qualify for financial assistance, a decision that was confirmed by the Ministry of Health.
At a meeting of the Epping Urban District Council Evacuation Committee on the 13 January 1940, they regarded the situation as intolerable and in its summing up questioned why the ratepayers of Epping should be paying the costs of maternity services for persons living in the East End, while they were denied such facilities themselves.
The report by the Epping Urban District Council Evacuation Committee which met on the 13 January 1940 stated:

"Sometime between September and December 1939 the point was reached when the persons receiving treatment at Hill Hall were no longer bona-fide evacuees. The Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour have reached this conclusion; there is no reason why Epping Urban District Council and Essex County Council should not concur with this view.

If this view is correct, is there any reason: -

(a) Why Essex County Council should continue to pay the salaries of staff and the administrative expenses of Hill Hall?

(b) Why Epping Urban District Council, as an agent for the Ministry of Health, should continue to accommodate expectant mothers at Sprigg 's Oak?

These persons either are evacuees or they are not evacuees. If they are, they are entitled to shelter in the Receiving Area at the expense of the Government and are also entitled to assistance from the Ministry of Labour where appropriate.

If they are not evacuees, then they are entitled to none of the benefits of evacuation.

It appears that any pregnant woman living in the East End with no intention of being evacuated can, by giving their name at the East End Maternity Hospital, secure ante-natal treatment, conveyance from London to Epping, accommodation at Sprigg's Oak prior to confinement, the care and attention of competent staff during confinement, post-natal treatment and conveyance back to London, all entirely free of charge."

At the conclusion of the meeting, it was decided that the report should be sent to Essex County Council and the Ministry of Health for consideration. The committee agreed that if the position over who should pay for the reception and housing of persons who appear not to be evacuees under the official Government scheme was not clearly and satisfactorily defined by the end of January, the Council would close Sprigg's Oak and would refuse to accept for billeting any further expectant mothers who had been registered for treatment at Hill Hall.

Mr. J. Hawton, the Senior Regional Officer at Cambridge contacted the Ministry of Health at Whitehall for advice about the situation. A week later a conference was held in Cambridge between the Ministry of Health and Essex County Council. The whole arrangements for maternity provision in Epping was reviewed and when it was completed Mr. Hawton sent a letter dated the 30 January 1940 to Lady Ebbisham. The letter detailed the outcome of the review and stipulated 13 propositions regarding future arrangements between the Hospital and Essex County Council in respect of the Hill Hall Maternity Hospital. These propositions were: -

(1) The County Council should be clearly responsible for the home and should be in general control of it and the staff. This would be as per the Councils responsibility for emergency accommodation for evacuated expectant mothers, as per the Ministry of Health's instructions,

(2) The County Council would endeavour to preserve the continuity of the East End Maternity Hospital and its training school.

(3) While in clear control of the staff, the County Council would undertake to make no changes in the staff without either agreement of the Hospital, or, failing agreement, approval of the Ministry.
(4) The County Council would pay the staff and all outgoings and be responsible for the maintenance and equipment of the home generally. But the Hospitals equipment would be left therefor continual use.

(5) The Hospital would arrange to supply patients by booking them out from the London end in numbers agreed from time to time with the County Council. The patients would be properly registered as evacuees in a manner to be agreed with London County Council - whom the Hospital should approach at once in this regard.

(6) The Hospital would arrange to recover appropriate charges for these patients at the London end. paying over these charges to the County Council.

(7) The County Council and the Hospital would take steps at once to settle a financial agreement - based on the principle that any funds in-coming to the Hospital would, after deducting necessary outgoings in respect of their continuing activities in London, be handed over to the County Council. The County Council would then account for these funds and claim on the evacuation account on a deficiency basis. Any such financial agreement would require the Ministry's approval.

(8) The Hospital would have the right to send out pupils and to exchange them between Hill Hall and London - subject to the numbers of the pupils and staff at Hill Hall not exceeding such numbers as the Ministry may approve. The matron at Hill Hall should be permitted to continue to supervise the training arrangements at the London end, subject to this not interfering unduly with the proper conduct of the work at Hill Hall.

(9) The question of the payment of salaries to pupils and its effects upon the grant to be taken separately by the Hospital with the Ministry at Whitehall.

(10) It would be clearly stipulated that Hill Hall would remain liable to take other evacuees than those registered through the Hospital, but, subject to any pressing necessity of the evacuation scheme, Hill Hall would be regarded as having a primary connection with the Hospital and its patients.

(11) The arrangements for the transport of patients from the Hospital to Hill Hall would be for the Hospital to take up separately with the London County Council

(12) The proposed financial agreement between the County Council and the Hospital would be made retrospective to an agreed date from which Hill Hall could be regarded as having become primarily connected to the Hospital, e.g. from the date when the patients booked out directly by the Hospital outnumbered the evacuee patients otherwise received at Hill Hall.

(13) With regards to Sprigg's Oak, it is suggested that this should be taken over under the direct control of the County Council as part of its emergency maternity arrangements. This taking over would be arranged between the County Council and the Epping Urban District Council, in agreement with the Ministry.

Mr. Hawton concluded his letter by asking that the Management Committee let him know that the propositions were acceptable, and whether they were agreeable to discussing immediately with the County Council an arrangement on these lines for the Ministry's approval. A similar letter was sent to Essex County Council.

On the 10th April 1940 the Management Committee held a meeting at 41 Upper Brook Street, London W1. They carefully considered the points raised in the letter paragraph by paragraph, and a reply was sent with some amendments. The committee agreed that if the Ministry were unable to accept these amendments the Chairman was empowered to make the best arrangements possible. The main amendments requested by the committee in their reply were as follows:-

(1) Regarding point 4 — it should be stipulated that the equipment is to be handed back in the same condition as when taken over, and that the wages of the Matron, Almoner, and Secretary should be included in that paid by the County Council. Also the fees of the Lecturer, Dr. Oxley who attends from London twice a week at £75 per quarter should also be included.

(2) Regarding point 7 - it is not anticipated that there will be a surplus and so it is considered that this point should be deleted.

(3) Regarding point 8 - the committee considers that it should be permitted to supervise the [training arrangements of the pupil midwives.

(4) Regarding point 9 - the committee cannot take over the responsibility of salaries to pupils as the Ministry of Health has already refused some grants if pupils receive payment.

(5) Regarding point 11 -the committee will do their utmost to arrange transport with the London County Council, but cannot be responsible for transport if the London County Council cannot arrange it. The London County Council have only promised to assist in cases where patients are sent in parties of 4 and 6, and that is not often possible.

(6) Regarding point 12 - the date of the agreement should be from the time that the patients were transferred to Hill Hall, namely the 2nd September 1939, and should continue until Hill Hall is closed as far as the East End Maternity Hospital is concerned.

The letter was signed by Lady Ebbisham and immediately sent to Mr. J. Hawton.
Despite the disagreements, the situation was eventually resolved. In July the "West Essex Gazette" confirmed that Essex County Council had officially taken over the running of Sprigg's Oak. At the same time the Council also re-took control of the Hill Hall Maternity Hospital. All parties were satisfied with the new arrangements and both the hospital and the hostel were able to continue to provide the important services required for evacuated mothers and their babies.

From September 1939, when the Maternity Hospital had opened at Hill Hall, to April 1940 there had been 472 admissions to the hospital and 350 babies had been delivered. Once Essex County Council had taken control in July, expectant mothers from the Epping area could also be admitted to Hill Hall and Sprigg's Oak instead of being sent to St. Margaret's Hospital. Women could still be sent from the East End as long as they were officially classed as "evacuees".

A photograph taken in September 1940 by Doris Messenger, who worked in the Hospital, showing a Sister (3rd from the left) and five mothers. The women are standing on the terrace at the south facing side of Hill Hall.

In the early summer months of 1940, the Hill Hall Maternity Hospital had to contend with the problem of "sticky eyes" in the infants. This problem was occurring very frequently and the County Medical Officer of Health was asked to investigate. He found that the probable source of the infection was the dust between the floorboards in some bedrooms. Six of the bedrooms were affected and it was decided that the floors should be covered with linoleum at an estimated cost of £21.

As the "phoney war" had ended in July, the Ministry of Health decided that patients in its Maternity Hospitals required some protection against air raids and instructed that shelters be built. The County Architect visited Hill Hall and suggested that a shelter could be built in the area of the house known as "The Crimson Corridor" at an estimated cost of £50. Permission from Lord and Lady Hay would be required and if this was not forthcoming, the only alternative was the building of a surface shelter in the grounds adjoining the hospital.

A potential problem for the Management Committee was the RAF's plan to house a number of its personnel in the Great Hall at Hill Hall if North Weald aerodrome was badly damaged during an air raid. The committee considered that if this did happen the premises could no longer be used as a maternity hospital and alternative accommodation would be needed.

In August Lady Edward Hay granted her consent for the air raid shelter to be built in The Crimson Corridor but requested that valuable red silk in the corridor should be protected by suitable covering to a height of six feet. The additional expenditure for this was estimated to be £10. It was also decided that the windows of the hospital should be covered with splinter-proof netting, and that a refuge room on the ground floor of the hospital should be provided for the use of members of staff during air raids. This reflected the fact that the "phoney war" was well and truly over and that bombs had begun to fall in the Epping area. On the 24th August North Weald aerodrome, which was only a few miles from Hill Hall, was bombed and badly damaged, but the RAF did not need to implement the plan to transfer personnel to Hill Hall.

Directories started in the late 17th century but it was not until the 19th century that they became more wide-spread across Britain and more comprehensive. By 1850 the main directory publishers were the Post Office, White's, Pigot's, and Kelly’s. The publisher of the directory often relied on local agents to collect information on the locality and its local residents - invariably upper and middle class - and trade and professional persons.
The population of Stanford Rivers in 1891 was 990, but by 1901 it had fallen to 909. The following businesses and principal people were listed in Kelly’s Directory for Essex for the year 1875.
Colonel Charles St. John Barnett – Stanford Rivers House.
Revd. Robert Rolleston – The Rectory.
COMMERCIAL:
William Betts – shopkeeper.
Joseph Brown – blacksmith
David Christy – farmer, Stanford Rivers Hall.
William Cottee – boot and shoe maker.
James Crouch – farmer, Freemans farm.
Joseph Downham – boot and shoe maker.
Sarah Edwards (Mrs) – shopkeeper.
Freeman and Palmer – farmers, Toot Hill.
John Freeman – cattle dealer & farmer, Murrell’s farm.
Daniel Hartgrove – poultry dealer, Toot Hill.
John Freeman (jnr) – farmer and cattle dealer, The Lawns and Traceys Farm
George Lane, shopkeeper.
Primrose McConnell – farmer, Ongar Park Hall.
Charles Alfred Millbank – farmer, Burrows and Clarks farms.
William Millbank – farmer, Widows farm.
Robert Mugglestone – farmer, Littlebury.
John Mumford – farmer, Toot Hill.
Emily Murton (Mrs)- Beer retailer.
Charles Owers – Green Man P.H. and Baker, Toot Hill.
James Palmer – farmer, Bridge farm.
Julian Plummer – farmer, Toot Hill.
Mary Ann Piggott (Mrs) – beer retailer.
William Reed – shoe maker, Toot Hill.
Richard Richardson – poultry dealer.
George Sawkins – shopkeeper, Toot Hill.
Peter Smith – farmer, Steers and Does.
Stephen Staines – wheelwright, Toot Hill.
Daniel Surridge – miller (wind), Toot Hill mill.
Jane Tanner (Mrs) – White Bear P.H.
Theodore Thompson – registrar of births and deaths and relieving and vaccination officer for Chipping Ongar sub-district.
James Tucker – hay carter.
Richard Waltham – farmer, Mitchell’s farm.
William Westwood – carpenter, Toot Hill.
Ellen White (Miss) – farmer, Berwick farm.
National School (mixed), built in 1850, for 190 children: average attendance 146; Henry Newmarch, master; Mrs Jane Newmarch, mistress.
Colonel Charles St. John Barnett
Shown in the directory as living at Stanford Rivers House, he was born in 1841, the fourth son of Henry and Eliza Barnett. His father was a doctor and J.P. Charles served as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Bengal Staff Corps.
In the 1891 Census he is shown as living at Sandon Hill. He was single and had two servants, a cook and a housemaid living at his address. In the 1901 Census he is shown as living at Great Colemans, Stanford Rivers. He died at Ongar in 1910, aged 69 years. He was buried in Lewisham, in the grave of his parents.

This post mill was built in about 1815 and is best known for a dramatic incident on 18 June 1829 when it was severely damaged after being struck by lightning. The miller, Joseph Knight, father of seven children was seriously injured, and subsequently engravings of the shattered mill were sold “for the benefit of the sufferer”. The engraving, reproduced in the Victoria County History, shows a figure in a dramatic pose in front of the ruined mill. The original drawing by Isaac Taylor of Stanford Rivers is in the Taylor collection in the Colchester Museum.
Nine days after the accident, Thomas Squire of Epping wrote at length in the Mechanics Magazine. He had examined the mill closely and described in detail the passage of the “electric fluid” through the building. After striking one sail, it passed through the cap and down a hoisting chain within the mill, welding the links into a solid mass. It then burst out through the side wall to reach the “plates of iron” covering the round house roof. From there it travelled down the iron braced access ladder to earth. The luckless miller, who was on the second floor at the time, suffered from burns, blast injury from flying fragments of wood and grain, damage to one eye and his right hand, and a compound fracture of one leg. The Chelmsford Chronicle gave a graphic account of these injuries, and Dr Potter, the Ongar surgeon, attended the victim to amputate his injured leg. The account grimly observed that “the saw was required” and noted, not surprisingly, that the miller’s health was “in a rather precarious state”.
Mr Squire, in the best traditions of journalism, had taken with him Joseph Marsh, of Park Corner, Epping, whose sketch of the ruined mill appeared as a woodcut on the front cover of the Mechanics Magazine. Squire sent at least one, and possibly two further reports to this publication and, a fortnight later, another of Marsh’s sketches featured on the front cover. The follow up reports indicated that the miller was recovering and that more than a cupfull of wheat grains had been removed from his body. The mill had not been insured but the owner, Edward Rayner, had instructed millwrights to commence repairs. There was discussion of the owner’s plan to erect a lightning conductor at short distance from the mill, as “he had no wish to invite such an unwelcome visitor a second time”. The writer considered that a well earthed copper strip attached to the sails would be a better precautionary measure. It is not clear what became of the miller, and the churchwarden’s accounts of this period are lost. It seems likely that he and his family would have required parish relief.
The mill was rebuilt and continued to operate until about 1900. By 1919 it was derelict and, in February 1923, it was again struck by lightning, setting the cap on fire. Three appliances from Epping extinguished the blaze. In 1935 a mill stone crashed through the upper floors and fell into the yard below. A photograph of that period shows the weatherboarded superstructure looking deceptively intact, though scrub was growing through the round house roof. It was decided to demolish the mill and, in December 1935, after removal of the brick round house, the body of the mill was pulled down with a rope. The saleable timber was disposed of and the rest given away as firewood. The four brick piers which supported the cross trees at the base of the main post were still visible in the 1950s. Are they still there, and what became of the luckless miller, Joseph Knight?
References:
Victoria County History volume iv (1956) p. 210
Mechanics Magazine xi 18 July 1829
Mechanics Magazine xi 1 August 1829
Essex Naturalist xxvii p. 51-54
Essex Windmills, Millers & Millwrights (1988) by K G Farries

The Essex County Constabulary came into existence in April 1840 under the command of Captain McHardy, who was appointed Chief Constable. The initial force consisted of 100 constables and 15 Superintendents. Strict instructions were issued as to the conduct of the force.

From the Chelmsford Chronicle 5th June 1840.

We last week referred to the orders and instructions drawn up by Captain McHardy for the information and guidance of the Superintendents and Constables. The first part relates to the discipline and clothing of the constables, and it is directed that they shall not upon any occasions or any pretence whatever take money from any person without the express permission of the Chief Constable, and the members of the force are prohibited from interfering directly or indirectly in any election.

THE CONSTABLES

With regard to the constables, the instructions say-
It should be understood at the outset that the principal object to be obtained is the prevention of crime.

To this great end every effort of the constabulary is to be directed. The security of person and property, the preservation of the public tranquillity, and all the other objects of a constabulary establishment, will thus be better effected than by the detection and punishment of the offender, after he has succeeded in committing the crime. This should constantly be kept in mind by every member of the constabulary force as the guide for his own conduct. Officers and constables should endeavour to distinguish themselves by such vigilance and activity as may render it extremely difficult for any one to commit a crime within the portion of the district under their charge.

When in any division offences are frequently committed there must be reason to suspect that the constabulary is not in that division properly conducted.

The absence of crime will be considered the best proof of the complete efficiency of the constabulary. In divisions where this security and good order have been effected, the officers and men belonging to it may feel assured that such good conduct will be noticed.

The chief constable wishes strongly to impress upon the mind of every person belonging to the Essex constabulary force, that it is their imperative duty to protect the liberty of her Majesty’s subjects, not to outrage it; to defend their legal rights and privileges, not to infringe upon them; to keep the peace, and carefully guard against being, even directly, accessory to breaking it.

He is not to quit his guard during his tour of duty unless under the circumstances already mentioned, or others which may make it necessary; he shall not enter any house except in the execution of his duty; he will pay a particular attention to all public-houses and other places for the sale of liquor in his guard, reporting the hours at which each is closed, and whether they appear to be kept according to good order.

On no pretence shall he enter any public-house, shop, room, or other place for the sale of liquors whether spirituous or otherwise, except in the immediate execution or his duty, such a breach of positive order will not be excused; the keeper of any such house, &c., is subject to a severe fine for allowing him to remain in his house; no liquor of any sort shall be taken from a public house, &c. without paying for it at all time.

If during the tour of his duty he observes in the streets or roads anything likely to produce danger or public inconvenience, or anything which seems irregular or offensive, he must report it to his superior.

He will be civil and attentive to all persons of every rank and class: insolence or incivility will not be passed over. While on duty he must not enter into conversation with any one, except on matters solely relating to his duty.

He must be particularly cautious not to interfere idly or unnecessarily; when required to act he will do so with decision and boldness; on all occasions he may expect to receive the fullest support in the proper exercise of his authority.

He must remember that there is no qualification more indispensable to a constable than a perfect command of temper, never suffering himself to be moved in the slightest degree by any language or threats that may be used: if he does his duty in a quiet and determined manner, such conduct will induce well-disposed bystanders to assist him should he require it.

In case of a fire taking place the constable at the spot will give immediate alarm by springing his rattle; he should as soon as possible send information to the division stations, and until the arrival of some superior officer from whom he may receive further orders, he will exert himself in any way likely to be most useful, as in keeping the space near the spot clear; assisting in removing property; sending to the nearest stations for further aid; giving notice to fire officers, engine keepers, turncocks, &c.

For his exertions upon these and other extraordinary occasions, the chief constable may recommend him for a reward; but upon no pretence shall he receive a gratuity from any person for anything relating to his duty; this will always be visited with immediate dismissal.

Any constable reported for endeavouring to conceal his No. or refusing to show or tell it when asked will be dismissed, as such concealment or refusal can only be caused by having done something that he is ashamed of.

Constables are cautioned against unnecessary violence by striking a party in their charge; a constable must not use his staff because the party in his custody is violent in behaviour or language; the constable is always to bear in mind that in taking any one into custody he is not justified in doing more than is absolutely necessary for the safe custody of the parties, whilst conveying them to the station house.

Constables will not be permitted to carry sticks or umbrellas.

Constables are always to take the outward side of the footpath, and it is particularly desired that the constables when walking along the streets should not shoulder past respectable people, but give way in a mild manner. The more respectful and civil the constabulary are, the more they will be supported in the proper execution of their duty.

SUPERINTENDENTS

The superintendent will be held responsible for the general conduct and good order of the officers and men under his charge. He should make himself thoroughly acquainted with the character and conduct of every man in the company under his orders; he will be firm and just, and at the same time kind and conciliating on all occasions.

He will take care that the standing orders and regulations, and all others given out from time to time, are promptly and strictly obeyed: much must be done by himself and under his own immediate inspection, and as he will be held responsible for general performance of the duties of the Constabulary Force within his own division, he must give clear and precise instructions to those under him, and report every instance of neglect to the chief constable.

It is not possible to lay out any precise course for the superintendent, nor to say how much of his time is to be passed in the active performance of his duties; but he will feel the absolute necessity of visiting some part of his division at uncertain hours every day and night.

If complaints are made to him by any person against any of his men, he is immediately to report every particular to the chief constable; and if the offence be of a serious nature, he may at once suspend the man, or take such precaution as may appear necessary.

It will be expected that he should at all times be prepared to furnish the chief constable with particular information respecting the state of every part of his division.

In watching the conduct of loose and disorderly characters, and of all persons whose behaviour is such as to excite just suspicion, he will keep in mind that the prevention of crime, the leading object of all his exertions, will be best attained by making it evident that they are known and strictly watched, and that certain detection will follow any attempt to commit a crime.

Some very wholesome hints are then given as to the best mode of proceeding in cases of fires, robberies, &c. and the instructions then proceed-

Superintendents shall attend every session of the justices, holden for their respective divisions, and shall make quarterly reports to the justices of all matters which they shall require to them concerning the constabulary under their orders, and shall obey all lawful orders and warrants of the said justice in the execution of their duty, never failing to communicate, minutely and without delay, every particular to the chief constable.

The constabulary force are to understand that they are to treat every magistrate with the utmost attention and marked respect.

Medical aid is to be immediately offered to any prisoner requiring it.

Whenever a charge is taken before a magistrate by any one under the superintendent’s orders, for the purpose of answering any questions the magistrates may think proper to ask, the superintendent must invariably accompany the accused.

Children found wandering abroad unable to give an account of their residence are to be taken charge of by the constabulary, and brought to the nearest station, treated kindly, and authority procured from the parish or relieving officer for the parties being received in the workhouse. Publicity of the circumstances to be given, and a full report to the chief constable, with a description of the party.

In all cases of violent or sudden death, the constabulary, whenever the case comes under their cognisance, will give information to the parochial authorities and report to the chief constable that they have done so.

The constabulary force will be very careful how they interfere and enforce any local regulations without previously having a request to do so in writing from authorised parties, which written request is immediately to be forwarded to the chief constable.

When King Charles II was restored in 1660 the new Government voted him a tax budget of £1,200,000 a year for life. The hearth tax was introduced in England and Wales in 1662 to provide a regular source of income for the newly restored monarch, King Charles II. Parliament had accepted in 1662 that the King required an annual income of £1.2 million to run the country, much of which came from customs and excise. By1661 the sum was short by £300,000, a figure that the hearth tax was projected to yield but which proved to be a hopeless overestimate. The Hearth Tax was collected twice a year until Lady Day 1689.

In 1662 every occupier was required to pay a tax of two shillings a year for each hearth or stove in his property. The tax was to be collected half-yearly, at Lady Day (25 March) and Michaelmas (29 September), by the petty constables, high constables and sheriffs, the constables having a right of entry to check any query about the number of hearths. The petty constables received two pence in the pound of the money collected for their considerable trouble.
The theory was that the tax would be a fair one as the number of hearths in the house would vary roughly with the wealth of the occupier.
Smaller dwellings which were exempt included:
Houses worth less than 20 shillings (£1) per annum and not paying parish rates.
Those occupied by people on poor relief.
Charitable institutions such as schools and almshouses.
Industrial hearths, except smith’s forges and bakers’ ovens.
Inmates of hospitals and almshouses.
Private ovens and kilns.
Those who were exempt were required to produce their exemption certificates, obtained from the parish clergyman, churchwardens and overseers of the poor and signed by two JPs (magistrates).
The hearth tax provides a remarkably rich series of records on population, wealth distribution and poverty in a period of key political, social and economic change.
There is currently a project run by the Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities (University of Graz, Austria) and Hearth Tax Research Project (University of Roehampton, UK) and supported by the British Academy. Their web-site allows us to look at the hearth tax returns for Michaelmas 1670 for Essex.
The following are those residents of Stapleford Tawney who were eligible for paying the hearth tax.
Name

No of Hearths
Thomas Luther Ar 15
Johannes Nicholson 7
Robinson 14
Jacobus Burton 5
Thomas Mansell 4
Johannes Wells 4
Thomas Burton 3
Johannes Grave 4
Thomas Mead 3
Johannes Waylett 3
Willelmus Taylford 2
Thomas Gray 3
Et p(ro) fabrile [for mechanical tool (i.e. forge)] 1
Thomas Elliott 2
Johannes Smith 1
Philipus Smith 1
Willelmus Althorpe 1
Johannes Lord 2
Turner 9
Joseph Parrell 1

The following persons are discharged by certificate

Johannes Fullihow 2
Carolus Rumbold 1
Rebecca Sherbold 1
Carolus Rumball jun 1
Cakebread vid 1
Willelmus Elmer 1
Younge vid 1

Viewed by Randolph Littler Collector
and Joseph Parrill Constable

Old Bailey Proceedings from 1674 to 1913 can now be accessed on-line. The proceedings of criminal trials between November 1834 and April 1913 have recently been added to provide a total of 197,745 trials. The proceedings are fully and easily searchable. They provide a rich source not only for any investigation of the justice system of the period but also for tales of local villainy, wrongdoers and just troublemakers. Trials related to a particular locality can often provide details incidentally about local inhabitants, either in their role as witnesses or from the other side of the dock as the accused.

Also included in these proceedings are the Ordinary of Newgate’s Accounts from the period between 1690 and 1772. These detailed narratives of the lives and deaths of convicts executed at Tyburn are linked to the relevant trials. So where does Chipping Ongar appear?

Robert Glascow was one of those subjects who unfortunately needed to receive the ordinary’s attention, being one of Ongar’s infamous sons. The twenty-eight years of Robert’s life are dispassionately described. He was born in Ongar into the family of a butcher of “good circumstances”. In conflict with his father, it was found to be “a difficult task to correct the Malignity of his Spirit”, and he was sent to work for another butcher where it was hoped new surroundings would provide some cure. This did little to improve Robert’s attitude; frequent complaints were delivered back to the father. On completion of his time with the butcher, Robert was set up by his father in a butchery, “a handsome Beginning” comments the ordinary. The opportunity to prosper from such a fortunate start was squandered through, and it is described more exactly in the account, the “Company of lewd Women”.

When he had dissipated the fruits of his comfortable introduction to the trade, Robert fell into crime, in the first instance robbing a stagecoach. The robbery necessitated some violence against a gentleman who attempted to draw his sword. The robbery aroused local consternation and Robert took to the country until the “Noise in the Neighbourhood” had quietened. In the country he seemed to exist through rustling of lambs and sheep, which he sold in local villages. When he felt safe enough he returned to London and was employed in London markets but this existence, apparently lawful, did not last long.

With three accomplices, and after some planning, a mercer was waylaid and robbed of a quantity of expensive cloth. Beginning now to fear for his eventual fate should he continue in his lawless way of life, he joined a guard-ship but after falling out with the rest of the crew, he was forced to join a second ship. On both, he was severally disciplined, eventually his conduct justifying his transfer to the Invincible, a man-of-war, where presumably the discipline might have been considerably tougher. His behaviour appeared to improve, but he left the ship at Portsmouth some months before his trial.

He had not fully forsaken wrongdoing and the final act in his criminal career was to rob a Mr Weeden and his wife of a ring, a pair of silver shoe buckles, a nice silver tobacco stopper, which included a corkscrew, and money on 22 May 1751. Weeden advertised the robbery with a description of the thief. Perhaps remarkably, within days Weeden was led to a two-penny lodging house near to Whitechapel church. Robert Glascow was identified in the vicinity but after some questioning he panicked and ran away only to be caught by someone who luckily turned out to be a headborough or peace officer.

The trial of Robert Glascow was straightforward. Why did he run? What was he doing on the day of the robbery? In answer to the latter his alibi was provided by a Mary Phillips with whom he had tea on the day. Poor Mary’s defence was ill-considered and faltering since it was concluded in court that Mary had little knowledge of time and date. She was a poorly prepared witness and there was an inevitability in the guilty verdict. Robert Glascow was sentenced to death in court on 3 July 1751.

Between 8 am and 9 am on 29 July, Robert Glascow was taken by cart from Newgate Prison to the place of execution. He was one of a group of eight prisoners carried in three carts. The usual crowds, “great Numbers of Spectators”, turned out to watch the convoy. The prisoners, it was noted, “all behaved as became their circumstances”. Hanged together, they were cut down in rotation thus preventing “a good deal of Hurry and Disturbance”.

The trials often illustrate harsh sentences but Mary Thomas appears to have been fortunate. John Hailstone lived at Chipping Ongar. He was an hostler or stableman usually attached to an inn. On 26 September 1820, he believed that he met Mary Thomas at a house in Whitechapel. Suddenly, she left the room (and please do not ask what he was up to at the time), leaving John Hailstone missing 14 shillings, a considerable sum of money then. An officer was summoned and Mary was held in Rose Lane, at which time she attempted to pass 3s. 6d. to her sister, dropping it on the ground. Some more money was found on her, but the full 14s. was not to be recovered. Mary claimed that she was not the person anyway. The jury acquitted her on 28 October. She might have been lucky!

In contrast, Charles Hodges was indicted for stealing 1lb. (0.45Kg) of butter. On 11 April 1826, William Woolmer, a carman or carter from Stanford Rivers, was delivering 8lbs. of butter to a gentleman’s house. In Sun-street, William, while stabling his horse, was told that his cart was being robbed and 1lb. was found to be missing. A Mrs White saw the prisoner put the butter under his arm and into his pocket, and notified Henry Casborn, who gave chase. The prisoner was caught after two hundred yards or so and the parts of the butter were found. Charles Hodges was found guilty and was sentenced to transportation for seven years. He was just fourteen.

Cornelius Osborne Dodd farmed land in Chipping Ongar. On 1 January 1810, he was returning from London in a gig with his wife. On the way through Epping Forest, Joseph and James Pearce were seen behind the Eagle in Snaresbrook on the road that leads to Woodford and Chigwell. Joseph approached, took hold of the horse’s head and halted the gig. “Your life or your money”; said Joseph, and promptly fired a pistol. A second pistol appeared and a further, and recognisably conventional, warning issued; “If you don’t deliver your money, I will blow your brains out”. Dodd protested that he had no money but seeing a woman in the vicinity he called out. Somewhat alarmed, the Pearces told the Dodds to drive on, and again threatened them in much the same language. They drove on towards the woman, reported the incident to her and called the police. Mary, his wife, supported the testimony of Cornelius.

Joseph and James Pearce came from Stepney, living “Anywhere, nowhere, where you like”. Thomas Twinn gave evidence on the proximity of the Pearces to the incident at the time. Two policemen handled the arrest of Joseph and James Pearce on 4 January. At the time of the arrest, Joseph was found to be carrying a life-preserver, or cosh, together with a pawnbroker’s ticket dated 2 January for one of a pair of pistols. He was caught with a gunpowder flask, percussion caps and six pistol bullets as well. Harold Wingfield from Waterloo Terrace, Commercial Road, Stepney, provided evidence from the pawnbrokers.

Although, the first count on which they were charged was intent to murder, they were found guilty only on the third count of felonious assault with intent to rob. The likely punishments would probably have been known. What commenced as drunken recklessness, led by the older brother, was nevertheless extremely foolhardy. Joseph was transported for fifteen years, James for ten.

James Saville, and James and John Webster came before the Old Bailey on 27 November 1837, charged with stealing two pigs of value £6. The pigs belonged to Thomas Gray Fellows, who, too ill to appear in court, was represented by his brother Bennett. Bennett testified that although he had seen the pigs at his brother’s premises on 20 October, he had later seen them in Chipping Ongar; “I am sure they are the same that belonged to him.” The landlord of the Red Lion called a resident of Chipping Ongar, Thomas Reynolds, to the pub where James Saville attempted to sell the pigs to him. Suspicions were aroused, and the pigs were driven to the market in the White Horse yard where it was maintained that James Saville had acknowledged that the pigs had been stolen from Captain Fellows. In his hasty confession, he also tried to implicate his co-defendents. However, on trial, the Websters were found not guilty, unlike James Saville who, being of previously good character, was nevertheless ordered to be confined for six weeks, aided no doubt by being “Recommended to mercy by the Jury and Prosecutor”. He was 17 years old.

Ongar does not appear frequently, perhaps a compliment to the civil obedience of the populace. However wrongdoing was often punished severely, so much so that it is surprising that the sentencing appears to carry little deterrence with it. In the absence of regular policing, arrest and conviction must have been unexpected and maybe even arbitrary. Social conditions at the time make it difficult to form any conclusion from the perspective of today, especially through using just a small selection of cases. However, this huge source of information from the Old Bailey is able to provide some tantalising insights into social history.

In 1907 Revd Lewis Newcomen Prance was the elderly well-respected rector of Stapleford Tawney and Theydon Mount. He was from a wealthy family and had been in post for over 30 years. So it must have been a surprise to find him being prosecuted in Ongar magistrates’ court. The rector’s ‘offence’ was to put on a village entertainment in Stapleford Tawney schoolroom. The newspapers of those days often reported unusual cases almost word for word, so we can almost hear the voices from the past. This was the report in the

Essex County Chronicle of February 1st 1907:

STAGE PLAYS AND LICENCES.
A RECTOR SUMMONED.

At Ongar Petty Session on Saturday, the Rev. L. N. Prance, rector of Stapleford Tawney, was summoned for permitting a stage play to be performed in an unlicensed place. P.C. Denny said that on Jan. 9 he visited Stapleford Tawney schoolroom, where he saw a stage erected, with scenery, screens, and a curtain. Witness was handed a programme by someone at the door. The programme referred to the characters of a play entitled “Beauty and the Beast”, and that the play was carried through by a number of adult people. A charge was made for admission.
Mr. Prance: What scenery was there? There were flowers on the back wall, and at the sides were screens with the plants on, where the beast was supposed die or something. [Laughter.]
Mr. Prance: It was only a cretonne hanging. That’s what the constable calls scenery.

The Chairman (Capt. Wellesley Pigott): That does not affect the case. The law says, “A dialogue between two persons in different costumes and characters constitutes a play within the meaning of the Act."
Mr. Prance: That is news to me. It was entertainment, and not intended as a stage play. It was a private thing altogether, for the benefit and amusement of our parishioners. It had a very high moral tone. It showed that a girl would be rewarded for filial piety. As to the payment for admission, the constable did not pay. [Laughter.] I hope it did him good, and taught him to look after his parents. [Laughter.]
The Chairman: We are quite satisfied that it was done in error, but it is distinctly laid down that it is a play if two persons take part in costumes and characters.
Mr. Prance: The money taken was for the band. Expenses were much more than the receipts.
The Chairman: Yes, I know what those things are.
Mr. Prance: Had we thought it necessary to come to you, we certainly should have done.
The Chairman: The law is against you. I’m sorry you were the victim, but I am afraid this is not an isolated case in the district.
Supt. Laver: That is why I brought it forward.
The Chairman: Perhaps if the press take notice of it, it will be noted by others. The defendant must pay the costs in this case.

The rector doesn’t seem to have been at all intimidated by the court or the summons, and could well afford to pay the costs. The case didn’t deter him or his parishioners from continuing to organise entertainments in the schoolroom, which served as a village hall right up to the 1960s, long after the school had closed.

The following February, the Chronicle reported on another entertainment in the same venue, but this time there were no legal repercussions:

STAPLEFORD TAWNEY.
The Roding Valley Brass Band held their social evening in the Schoolroom. The Rev. L. N. Prance congratulated the band on their progress, and spoke in praise of the good work of the Bandmaster, Mr. Page. [Hear, hear.] It was his pleasing duty to ask Mr. Page to accept a clock in appreciation of his efforts, and to ask Mr. George Parker to receive a silver-mounted walking-stick in recognition of his aid and his willingness to allow the use of his premises for practice. [Hear, hear.] —Both recipients appropriately replied. Songs were contributed by Miss Threader, Miss Purnell, Miss C. Purnell, and Mr. C. Stubbings. Mr. A. Woodrow gave phonograph selections, the brothers Nickerson gave a musical duet, and the band played dance music.

The village band had given themselves the rather grand title of Roding Valley Brass Band, although their only reported performances were in Stapleford Tawney and Stanford Rivers. The band was probably started up at the suggestion of Sir Charles Cunliffe Smith of Suttons, as the key organisers and some of the performers lived in his estate properties near Suttons. Estate owners and clergy encouraged activities which kept the men out of the pub.

Frank Page the bandmaster was the sub-postmaster at the Post Office near Passingford Bridge. George Parker was the blacksmith at Cutlers Forge, at the bottom end of Tawney Lane, and played in the band himself. The Purnell sisters were the daughters of the gardener at Suttons and lived in one of their cottages along the main road. Miss Threader was the Moletrap landlord’s daughter, and Charlie Stubbings also lived on Tawney Common.

Albert Woodrow was a young carpenter living in Berwick Lane on the Suttons estate, and must have been one of the few locals to own a phonograph. The phonograph (later called gramophone) was invented by Thomas Edison in 1877, and must have been quite an expensive purchase for a gamekeeper’s son. The brothers Nickerson were the only non-locals – they lived in faraway Coopersale Street (the road from Hobbs Cross to the Theydon Oak). Most of the audience and performers would have walked or cycled to the school, braving the winter weather.

Local newspapers are a valuable source of information, and can provide revealing glimpses of everyday life from the past.

High Country Programme
2022/23

27 October

The Plant Hunters

Maggie Piper

24 November

The World of Art Deco

Mark Lewis

23 February

1926

Martyn Lockwood

23 March

AGM

27 April

John Ray

Jennifer Rowland

25 May

Napoleonic Invasion Plans

Neil Wiffen

22nd June
tbc

27 July

William Byrd

Andrew Smith

26 October

The Prison at Hill Hall

Anne Padfield

23 November
tbc

Meetings are held in Toot Hill Village Hall.
Meetings start at 8.00pm.

Members £1 ~ Visitors £5.

Refreshments