As part of my Ebbans One Name Study, I spent some time researching a man involved in the Agrarian Riots of the 1820s and 1830s. Imagine my excitement when while watching an episode of Who Do You Think You Are, parts of the story began to sound familiar to me and I realised they were referring to the man I had researched!
Part of the episode focused on Ed Balls’ agricultural labourer ancestor, Christopher Green, who was also involved in the riots and charged with arson alongside William Ebbon in 1832. (It can be viewed on the BBC iPlayer – Green’s story begins at 29:45.)
William Ebbon was baptised at St Leonard’s, Horningsheath (later known as Horringer) in Suffolk, on the 4th of August 1799. He was the son of William Ebbon and Temperance Elliss.
Mousehold Heath, Norwich by John Crome (c1816-1818)
By 1821, the family had settled in nearby Winfarthing, Norfolk. In the 1821 census, William was recorded with his parents at the Winfarthing Workhouse. However, they were not inmates, his father was noted as the governor, whereas 22-year-old William was recorded as a labourer.
The show discusses Christopher Green’s arrest for destroying a threshing machine at Winfarthing on 19 September 1822. William wasn’t named as one of the men involved that night, but he was arrested for the same offence 10 days later. He and Ed Balls’ ancestor were both part of the growing movement of disgruntled agricultural labourers who felt forced to act against their livelihoods being taken away from them. One of the main issues was the introduction of new machinery that took even more work away from the already struggling labourers. (For more information see my post about the Agrarian Riots.)
On 29 September 1822, William was involved in the breaking of a threshing machine at Winfarthing during a riot of agricultural labourers. He and a man named Robert Large, pleaded guilty and the court decided that as their conduct was “not having been of an aggravated description”, both were sentenced to be bound in their own recognizance of £20. They were able to do so and were discharged.
Norfolk Chronicle, 14 December 1822, p3, c2
Ten years later, William was again involved in destruction of property. In 1832, he, along with Christopher Green and Robert Hubbard, was charged with “having set fire to the premises of the Manor-house called Winfarthing Lodge, the property of the Earl of Albemarle, and in the occupation of Mr. Daniel Doggett, an opulent farmer…”. The men were committed to Norwich Castle (the county gaol). Hubbard ‘turned approver’ and gave evidence implicating William, Christopher Green and two others, Robert Dixon and Francis Mullett, in the crime of sheep stealing. [Stamford Mercury, 25 May 1832, p4, c6]
Norwich Castle by James Bridges (1833)
Ultimately, the grand jury of the Norfolk and Norwich Assizes held 30 August 1832, ignored the bills of arson against them, and acquitted them of having stolen a ewe sheep, the property of Mr. Edmund Bale, of Tibbenham on 21 December 1831. [Norwich Mercury, 04 August 1832, p3 c1]
The Norwich Mercury reported: “This case rested almost entirely on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, who had never mentioned the matter till he was apprehended on suspicion of setting fire to some premises at Winfarthing.” [Norwich Mercury, 04 August 1832, p3 c1]
William Ebbon and his family stayed in Winfarthing for a few years after this, but sometime after 1836, the family emigrated to the United States.
In 1840, William was recorded at Sackets Harbor, Hounsfield, Jefferson, New York and again at Hounsfield in 1855 before the trail goes quiet.
All William Ebbons‘ other ‘accomplices’ remained in Winfarthing. Robert Hubbard, the ‘turncoat’, died there only a few years later in 1835. Christopher Green died in 1860 at the Kenninghall Union Workhouse. Robert Dixon died at Winfarthing in 1865, and Francis Mollett died in the Kenninghall Union Workhouse in 1873.
Has anyone you were researching ever been mentioned on television?
In the 1820s and 1830s, desperate agricultural labourers in England began to revolt. There were a few factors involved in causing this unrest but Land Enclosure is considered to have played a large part.
Agrarian Rioters in 1830
Before Enclosure
Before enclosure, villages used an open field system of farming. Large open fields were divided into strips that would be farmed by its owners. They were often scattered, and there were no fences or hedges to divide them.
There was also an area of common land used for grazing. This was not open to the general public but was land (controlled by the lord of the manor) that people from that village had rights to use. The land would be used to pasture cattle or keep livestock such as geese, and collect turf, firewood, fruit or berries. There would be a communal consensus for when and how the land would be farmed.
After Enclosure
After enclosure, the separate strips were consolidated so that owners had unified pieces of land. These were marked out through fences or hedges with absolute property rights. No communal consensus was needed – owners could do with their land as they wished.
Enclosure of land was not new, but in the late 18th century it was now being formalised with parliamentary acts. A landowner wanting to enclose land in their parish would obtain a private Act of Parliament. Commissioners would then visit the parish to survey the area and hear claims of other land holders or those with rights to the common. The commissioners would then enclose the open fields, allocating a plot of land that was equal in size to the total strips of land a landowner previously held. The common would also be divided and given to landowners depending on their total landholdings in the parish and access they had to the common.
People who previously had common rights lost the ability to use that land to make ends meet and those who still had some rights, such as tenant farmers, were increasingly asked for rent in cash rather than stock or produce.
How were agricultural labourers affected?
Consolidating the land meant that less workers were needed. It became more common for labourers to be paid by the day or week, or employed for short periods such as harvesting, hedging, ditching and threshing. Farmhands became casual labourers with no guarantee of work, and rates of pay dropped because there were so many available workers. The problem grew worse in 1815 when the Napoleonic Wars ended, and many thousands of soldiers returned to the rural labour market.
A Horse Gin in Use (The Illustrated Exhibitor, 1851)
The introduction of threshing machines aggravated the situation. Farm labourers who had previously been employed to manually thresh grain over the winter months, were replaced by cheaper and more efficient horse-powered machines. Groups of agricultural labourers began to rise up, setting fire to farms and destroying machinery.
If captured, the rioters faced imprisonment, transportation, and even execution, so it was not an act to be taken lightly.
If you have ancestors who were agricultural labourers in the 1820s and 1830s, they may well have been involved in the protests.
In 1901, Thomas Henry WHEELEY and Ann ROGERS had been married for 23 years and had had 8 children together. They were living on Dalkeith Street in Walsall – a row of terraced houses built alongside the Walsall Locks less than ten years before (in the early 1890s). Thomas was a ‘brown saddler’ living in “a poor locality” so life was probably not easy for the family.
Thomas Henry Wheeley and Ann Rogers on the 1901 census
On Saturday the 20th May, 1905 – only a few years after the census was taken – the family had ‘a quarrel’. Thomas who had been out drinking, came home and argued with Ann, calling her names. Ann, in turn, threatened to throw a saucer at him and Thomas attacked her with a knife. Their 18-year-old son, George Alfred, seeing this take place, struggled with his father and was subsequently hit on the head with some tongs [Not sure if these would be saddler tongs or coal tongs or another type). Ann had managed to escape the house during the scuffle and discovered she had been cut on the wrist.
Walsall Advertiser 27 May 1905 p6 c7
BEER, AND A QUARREL.
A saddler named Thomas Wheeley (53), of 91, Dalkeith Street, was charged with unlawfully wounding Ann Wheeley, his wife, with a knife, and also with violently assaulting Alfred Wheeley, his son, by hitting him on the head with a pair of tongs. -The police authorities agreed to withdraw the charges, and substitute charges of common assault only. -The story for the prosecution was that on Saturday night the man Wheeley went home under the influence of drink, and a quarrel, arose. He called his wife a bad name, and she threatened to throw a saucer at him. During the quarrel she found that she had received a wound on the wrist, and went out of the house. -The son’s evidence was to the effect that he saw his father with a knife, and struggled with him. He succeeded in getting his mother out of the house, but while he was doing so he was struck on the head with the tongs. -Dr Mackenzie-in-Thurm (house surgeon at the hospital) said he attended to the woman’s injured wrist. There was only a small punctured wound. It was not serious. -The magistrates sentenced Wheeley to 14 days’ imprisonment. (Walsall Advertiser 27 May 1905 p6 c7)
I find it interesting that “the police authorities agreed to withdraw the charges, and substitute charges of common assault only”. Who requested the charges be withdrawn/substituted? Common assault is a lesser charge than ‘unlawfully wounding’ or ‘violently assaulting’ [source] and so appears to minimise Thomas’ actions. Was the switch to a lesser charge because: a) there was a lack of evidence of more serious injuries; b) prosecution were more likely to secure a conviction this way; or c) the general view that domestic violence was less serious?
Thomas’ two-week stint in prison for the assaults seemed to have little effect. A few weeks later, the couple were living at separate addresses – Thomas on Cannon Street and Ann at 481 Pleck Road – when Ann requested a separation order to support her and their four remaining dependent children – Sidney, Ernest, Grace Hilda and Maria (whose ages ranged from 14 to 7).
Walsall Advertiser 24 June 1905 p2 c5
PERSISTENT CRUELTY.
Thomas Henry Wheeley, Cannon Street, was summoned for persistent cruelty to his wife, who applied for an order against him. -Complainant stated that she had been obliged to leave her husband because of his persistent cruelty. She had been married 29 years and had eight children, four of which were depending upon her. Her husband had assaulted her several times and was always threatening her. She had had seven pair of black eyes in less than three months. -The Chairman (to defendant): How many black eyes have you given her since you were married? -Two, that’s all sir. -An order for 10s a week was eventually made. (Walsall Advertiser 24 June 1905 p2 c5-6)
In 1895, the ‘Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act’ was introduced. It allowed married women to apply to the magistrates’ courts for separation and maintenance orders if their husbands had:
i. been convicted of an aggravated assault under S.43 of the Offences Against The Persons Act 1861
ii been convicted on indictment for assault and sentenced to at least two months imprisonment or fined £5
iii. deserted them
iv. been guilty of persistent cruelty so as to make their wives leave home.
v. wilfully neglected to maintain so as to cause their wives to leave home.
(Radford, M. T. (1988) The law and domestic violence against women. PhD Thesis. University of Bradford. Available from: https://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk/handle/10454/3875 (Accessed: 13 May 2020), page 38)
Ann applied for an order of separation on the grounds of his persistent cruelty and subsequent articles definitely paint a picture of an unhappy marriage marred with ‘persistent cruelty’ and alcohol abuse.
A coal hod for sale in 1904 – Thomas was witnessed to have struck his wife Ann with one.
Ann told the court that her husband had ‘never treated her kindly’ and that she had had ‘seven pair of black eyes in less than three months’. Thomas denied this and claimed he had ‘only’ given her two and struck her ‘no more than three times’. Ann also claimed that Thomas had hit her on the head with a coal hod – a claim supported by their 25 year old daughter, Blanche who witnessed the incident. Blanche also confirmed that her father had ‘frequently’ given her mother black eyes. However she also said that her mother had also ‘been under the influence of drink’ but this had not been for some time since “she has not had the money”.
Walsall Observer, and South Staffordshire Chronicle 24 June 1905 p2 c5
SEVEN PAIRS OF BLACK EYES IN SIX MONTHS –
Thomas Wheeley, saddler, Cannon Street, was summoned by his wife, Ann Wheeley, of 481, Pleck Road, who sought to obtain a separation order on the ground of his persistent cruelty. -Complainant stated that she had been married 29 years, and of her eight children four were dependent upon her. Her husband, who was resently [sic] sent to prison for stabbing her in the wrist, had said that he had done 14 days, and he would yet do 14 years for her. He had never treated her kindly, and a few weeks ago he had struck her on the head with a coal hod. He had given her seven pairs of black eyes in less than six months. Since he came out of prison he had continually threatened what he would do to her. -She denied, in cross-examination by defendant that he had not struck her more than three times since they had been married. -In reply to a question from the Bench, defendant said he had only given his wife two black eyes, and she denied that she had been locked up for being drunk. -Blanche Marston, daughter, also spoke to her father’s ill-treatment of her mother, and said that he had frequently given her black eyes; she did not know how many. She saw him strike her with the coal hod. She admitted that her mother had been under the influence of drink, but not for some time. “She has not had the money,” she added, amid laughter. Since her father came back from gaol his language had been unbearable. -Complainant was re-called, and asked for 10s. a week. -An order was made for that amount. (Walsall Observer, and South Staffordshire Chronicle 24 June 1905 p2 c5)
Despite the 1895 act, it’s clear that domestic violence was still not regarded as seriously as it should. Thomas’ seemingly casual, or even blasé attitude regarding the violence he actually admits to inflicting on his wife indicates that beating your wife was largely seen as ‘fine’ depending on its regularity or severity. A woman’s options were very limited and there were many reasons a wife would remain with an abusive husband – whether financial, emotional or social.
For whatever reasons, Thomas and Ann were together again by the 1911 census.
Wheeley family on the 1911 census (130 Bridgeman Street)
I was completely unaware of the events of 1905 until recently. Thomas and Ann appeared in every census together since their marriage in 1878 (1881-1911) so I didn’t expect there to have been such a rift. We like or want to believe that the families we research lived peacefully together despite their often difficult lives. My discovery of these newspaper articles reminded me this is often not the case.
The census is only a ‘snapshot’ every ten years – it’s important to remember this. A lot can happen between these ‘snapshots’. Just as living at the same address two censuses in a row doesn’t always mean they’d actually been there all that time, a family simply living together does not always mean their lives were harmonious all that time.
Newspapers are ‘da bomb‘ for finding out information about relatives but it’s important to widen searches for different spellings, variations and even other family members. This time, searching just the name Rollett (it helps that it’s not too common), brought up an article I hadn’t seen before:
Nottingham Journal, 20 March 1876, p4 c2
USING OBSCENE LANGUAGE – Hannah Rollett was charged with using obscene language in Walker lane, on Wednesday last, to the annoyance of Sarah Ann Rollett, and fined 40s. and costs, or, in default, one month with hard labour. -Ann Wright was charged with a similar offence in the Market place and Bold lane, to the annoyance of John Rollett, on Wednesday last, and fined 40s. and costs, or, in default, one month with hard labour.
Nottingham Journal, 20 March 1876, p4 c2
Typical of the Hannah I’d come to know and love, and interesting that it involved Alexander’s sister, Sarah Ann, again. But underneath, the next case also involved a Rollett and I was wondering if there was a connection when I noticed the name ‘Ann Wright’. I know that Hannah had a sister, Ann, who married a Wright in 1872. Could this be her? Were they all arguing together – siblings against siblings? And who was this John Rollett?
It was only a couple days later that a different search revealed more information:
Derby Mercury, 22 March 1876, p2 c5
Hannah Rollett was charged in her absence with using obscene language to the special annoyance of Sarah Ann Rollett, her sister-in-law, in Workhouse-yard, Walker-lane. -Fined 40s. and costs, or one month’s imprisonment.
Ann Wright was charged in her absence with using obscene language to the special annoyance of Alexander Rollett, the husband of the last defendant. The affair took place in consequence of the complainant demanding his child, which had been under Wright’s care. -Fined 40s. and costs, or one month’s imprisonment, with hard labour.
Derby Mercury, 22 March 1876, p2 c5
Derby c1899 map showing places mentioned in the articles (Blue line marks Bold Lane)
The extra details indicate that this was indeed a ‘family affair’ so it’s more than likely this Ann Wright was in fact, Hannah’s sister. We know that her first daughter, Sarah Jane, was ‘under Wright’s care’ in 1881 where they appear in the census together. Sarah Jane would have been aged 4 at the time of this article but it could also refer to his son, Richard William who would have been nearly 2 years old. By 1881, ‘William’ was living with his father and his live-in-lover, Selina Banks. [Hannah was 3 months pregnant with John William at the time.]
1881 census – Bonsall – Sarah Jane living with her aunt, Ann1881 census -Derby (Nun St) – Richard William living with his father, Alexander1881 census – Derby (Willow Row) – John William living with his mother, Hannah
It seems a bit rich that Alexander and his sister would take his wife and sister-in-law to court based on their language – they were hardly beacons of modesty. The move seemed designed to antagonise but it is hard to say who was in the right here as neither parent seemed like a great role model. A few months later, Alexander was involved in a ‘murderous assault on a policeman‘; the next year, Hannah committed her own ‘murderous attack‘; and a few years later, Hannah and Alexander would again argue over custody of their children which caused newspapers to report on their ‘Shocking Immorality’.
It wasn’t too long after the ‘shocking immorality‘ of 1881 that Hannah Bates/Rollett established a relationship with the significantly younger, William Henry Lamb.
William’s family had lived in the West End area of Derby for generations and he and Hannah soon set up home in one of the court houses in Willow Row. His parents lived in neighbouring Goodwin Street (where William himself was born at number 29), and like his father, William worked as a bricklayer and chimney sweep.
By 1882, Hannah was already referring to William as her husband, and using his surname when she was charged with drunkenness in Willow Row. (William was only 17 years old at this point and Hannah was 25.)
Derby Daily Telegraph, 08 May 1882, p4 c3
–Hannah Lamb was charged with drunkenness in Willow-row.-Prisoner said she was suffering more from passion than drink. Her husband had turned her out of the house.-She was fined 5s. and costs, or seven days’ imprisonment with hard labour.
Derby Daily Telegraph, 08 May 1882, p4c3
From this we can assume they had been living together as ‘man and wife’ despite not being married and that the relationship was quite tumultuous even in their early days together.
The next year, it was William’s turn to be fined for drunkenness:
Derby Daily Telegraph, 03 November 1883, p3 c4
DRUNKENNESS.-William Lamb was fined 10s. and costs for being drunk and disorderly in Willow-row, on Thursday afternoon.–Police-constable Levers proved the case.
Derby Daily Telegraph, 03 November 1883, p3 c4
A few years later, Hannah was summoned for threatening Mary Toon after a quarrel ‘about a cat’:
Derby Daily Telegraph, 07 May 1885, p3 c3
USING THREATS. -Hannah Lamb, a married woman, was summoned for threatening Mary Toon, on the 2nd inst -The parties live in Willow-row, and quarrelled about a cat -The defendant was bound over to keep the peace for 3 months in the sum of £10.
Derby Daily Telegraph, 07 May 1885, p3 c3
Interestingly, William’s mother was a Toon so this Mary could be one of his relatives.
It was only a few months later that both Hannah and William were involved in some kind of brawl with the neighbours:
Derby Daily Telegraph, 25 August 1885 p3 c6
THE VIOLENT ASSAULT IN WILLOW ROW. – Thomas Limbert, John Tearney, and Henry Hill were charged with violently assaulting William Lamb, in court 3, Willow-row, on the night of the 21st instant. -Mr. Briggs defended Tearney and Hill. -The prosecutor stated that he lived in Court 3, Willow row, and knew the prisoners, who live in the same court. On Friday night, about half-past eleven, he went to Limbert’s house. The door was locked, and he shouted “Is our Nan here?” meaning Hannah Rollet. Limbert replied that she was not. Witness then requested to be allowed to look, and Limbert unlocked the door and went outside, and, using some bad language, he asked what witness wanted there. Without getting an answer he struck witness a number of times, and knocked him down. The other prisoners then went up the yard, and said to Limbert, “Give it the –, Tommy.” They then started kicking him whilst he was on the ground. Witness was taken to the Infirmary where he remained until that morning. He had been on friendly terms with the prisoners. He did not kick at the door when he went to Limbert’s house. -Hannah Rollit gave similar evidence. -The defence was that Lamb and Limbert were fighting, when Lamb fetched a sweep’s scraper out, and would have killed Limbert with it had not Hill prevented him. Tearney, it was said, was never within ten yards of the place where the fight took place. -Mr. Briggs called several witnesses, who corroborated the latter statement. -The Bench, having a doubt as regards Tearney, discharged him, Limbert, who had been convicted 15 times before, was sent to gaol for a month, with hard labour, Hill who had 21 previous confictions against him, was sentenced to a similar term.
Derby Daily Telegraph, 25 August 1885 p3 c6
The Derbyshire Advertiser and Journal gave a different account a few days later:
Derbyshire Advertiser and Journal, 28 August 1885, p3 c5
ALLEGED VIOLENT ASSAULT IN WILLOW-ROW. -Jas. Limbert, John Teeney, and Henry Hill were charged with violently assaulting William Lamb, in Court 3, Willow-row, on the previous day. -Police-constable Robinson said that on the previous night he was called to a house in Court 3, Willow-row, by a woman named Rollet. On arriving there he saw the prosecutor who was bleeding from the mouth, and he complained of having been assaulted by three men. Witness did not see any wounds or bruises on him, and consequently told him to summon the men, who had attacked him. The woman Rollet subsequently procured a cab, in which the prosecutor was taken to the Infirmary, and from what the doctor who there examined him stated, the prisoners were apprehended and charged with the offence. Limbert said that Lamb went to his door, and made several unpleasant remarks about his wife. The door was fast, and he commenced kicking it. He (Limbert) then opened the door, and Lamb struck at him, whereupon he retaliated and knocked him down in self-defence. Prosecutor regained his feet, and they then had a fair fight, during which the other men came up, and Lamb ran into his own house. He came out again with a sweep’s broom, with which he struck at them, but after a scuffle they took it from him. -Police-constable Shirley also gave evidence as to Lambert’s condition. -Prisoners were remanded until Monday.
Derbyshire Advertiser and Journal, 28 August 1885, p3 c5
