Category: Staffordshire

Morris Brothers, Aldridge and West Bromwich

By Alannah Tomkins

Written by Denise, posted by Alannah

Intrigued when examining two Poor Law vouchers for Aldridge, Staffordshire, which mentioned the trial of “the three Morrises”, my research revealed two brothers were both transported in 1819 to Australia for 7 years for Larceny (Theft).

Included in the description of costs claimed by Constable James Wakeman in a voucher (receipt): “Prosecution of the Three Morris’s” are various journeys and duties commencing 7 Jan 1818, including: taking Thomas Morris at Aldridge, executing two search warrants, attending his prosecution at Shenstone, using a chaise to take the prisoner to Stafford Prison, bringing the prisoner home from [West] Bromwich, journeys of witnesses, a journey to “West Bromwich and Wednesbury to take Mrs Morris”.

Included in the invoice for legal costs incurred on 13 March 1818 by attorneys Messrs Croxall and Holbecke, were costs “Instructions for Brief and preparing same against Thomas Morris on the prosecution of Samuel Boden, the like against Hannah, Thos and John Morris on the prosecution of Sophia Rogers…” and then on the same date “attending at Stafford conducting these prosecutions when Thomas and John Morris were transported”.

My research revealed Thomas and John Morris were born and baptised in West Bromwich, Staffordshire in November 1793 and October 1790 respectively to Hannah (nee Sheldon, 1764-1823) and James Morris (1765-1836).  There were at least four other siblings, Elizabeth, Mary, James and Anne, in the family with ancestors that can fairly easily be traced back to the seventeenth century.

Reports in The Staffordshire Advertiser revealed Thomas was tried at the Stafford Lent Assizes in March 1818 for the theft of a goose and a gander, whilst John and their mother Hannah were tried for “various other felonies”. Hannah was acquitted but John was found guilty of the “theft of wearing apparel” and was sentenced to 7 years Transportation along with brother Thomas.

It seems unlikely that the brothers were sentenced to transportation on first offences but with criminal records at that time usually only quoting names, and not ages or addresses, it is not possible to confirm what other offences might have been committed.  Transportation for 7 years seems to be the customary, albeit harsh, sentence for those convicted of larceny.

They remained at Stafford Gaol until being removed, along with 19 other convicts under sentence of transportation, to the hulks (holding prison ships) at Sheerness, Kent.  They did not leave England until 14 June 1819 when they sailed to Australia on the “Malabar” with 168 other convicts, arriving at Sydney, New South Wales, on 30 October 1819.

Various convict records describe the two brothers: Thomas was 27 years old, a locksmith and was 5ft 5 ½” with a “dark pale” complexion, black hair and hazel eyes. John was 29, a pistol maker, and shorter at 5ft 3 ½”, with a “dark pale”complexion, brown hair and grey eyes with a blemish in the right eye.

They appear to have served out their sentence in Sydney and remained there when granted Certificates of Freedom in March 1825, with Census records indicating they were living together in Market Street, Sydney, in 1828; Thomas was now a gunsmith and John a barber.  There are no apparent records of Thomas marrying or having a family although John secured permission to marry a Bonded Convict (still serving her sentence) in 1829, Catherine Richardson, who had also been sentenced to 7 years Transportation for “Coining” (passing counterfeit coins), arriving on “Competitor” the previous year.

Catherine died in 1842 and there are no records of their children, although John seems to have fathered a daughter with an “Anne D” according to other ancestry trees in 1850.

Both brothers stayed in the Sydney area, Thomas dying aged 56 years in 1850 and John in 1868, aged 78 years.  It is unlikely that they would remained in contact with their family in West Bromwich, Staffordshire, so would have been unaware that father James died in 1836 and their mother, Hannah, in 1823. Their only brother James seems to be more law-abiding, residing with his wife and family in West Bromwich and employed as a pistol filer until he died in 1860.

Sources of Information:

SRO D120/A/PO/102, Aldridge Overseers’ Vouchers dated 15 Mar 1818

SRO D120/A/PO/103, Aldridge Overseers’ Vouchers dated 1818

England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975

England & Wales, Criminal Registers, 1791-1892

New South Wales, Australia, Convict Indents, 1788-1842

Australian Convict Transportation Registers – Other Fleets & Ships, 1791-1868

New South Wales, Australia, Convict Applications for the Publications of Banns, 1828-1830, 1838-1839 New South Wales, Australia, Convict Records,  1810-1891

Australia, Marriage Index, 1788-1950

1828 New South Wales, Australia Census (Australian Copy)

New South Wales, Australia, Historical Electoral Rolls, 1842-1864

New South Wales, Australia, Certificates of Freedom, 1810-1814, 1827-1867

Australia, Death Index, 1787-1985

Australia, Birth Index, 1788-1922

Ancestry Family Trees

Top Trumps explained

By Alannah Tomkins

The game of Top Trumps depicting people found by the Small Bills project arrived on my doorstep yesterday, and in less than five minutes my son was demanding an explanation of the different categories of score.

Like similar games, each card has a subject (in this case a woman, man, or child associated with the Old Poor Law) and scores in five categories. The scores are frequently assigned approximately or randomly rather than according to a system or to strict data – at least that has been my assumption when playing these games with my children. Therefore the scores are not rigid indicators of research, but either approximations or entirely made up (to ensure a good range of scores across all of the characters).

‘Life Story’ provides a score out of five and notionally indicates the extent to which we can know the details of someone’s life. The East Sussex diarist Thomas Turner is the only one of our people who left such a lengthy personal document, so in honour of this fact he is the only person with the top score of five. Everyone else gets between one and four, based loosely on how well we can hope to research their biography, and find out details of their lives.

Agency is given as a percentage, and alludes to the range of action open to each person. The dead pauper Charles Aldritt has an agency score of zero, whereas the litigious Cumbrian businessman Charles Thurnam has the highest score (95%) in recognition of his willingness to throw his weight around.

Surname rarity has a greater measure of system behind it. I looked at the prevalence or otherwise of each surname according to the website https//:forebears.io and then converted the rankings into a score out of 1000. This process awards Ann Tomsat the highest score of 995, and gives Elizabeth Wilson just 10.

Persistence refers to the number of decades (out of ten) where we might hope to be able to trace the person in historical records, including but not limited to the vouchers. I had to tinker with this set of scores a little, so they do not necessarily represent what I know to be true or feel to be possible for all characters: the risk was that, otherwise, many people would have had a score of just one!

Finally Poverty Rating ranks the cards from one to thirty based on the severity of their poverty relative to each other. In this category the Staffordshire child Nancy Wilkes gets a score of 29: I was very pleased with the illustration for this card!

More information on some of the people featured in the Old Poor Law Top Trumps can be found in the blogs on this website.

Elizabeth Parrock (d.1787), midwife

By Alannah Tomkins

The history of midwifery in the eighteenth century in England is a story of a traditionally female occupation being colonised by male medical practitioners. In 1700 deliveries were nearly all conducted by women, whereas by 1800 deliveries to prosperous families were conducted by men. Doctors and surgeons charged more for their obstetric services than their female competitors (typically 10s 6d or £1 1s per child by men, compared with 2s 6d or 5s per child by women), so women continued to deliver only the poorest expectant mothers.

Wellcome Images https://wellcomecollection.org/works?query=man-midwife&search=images

The success of the ‘man-midwife’ can be attributed to a number of social and intellectual developments. The introduction of delivery by forceps in the first half of the eighteenth century, a technological refinement not used by female midwives, probably accounts for some of the increased popularity for trained men. They could achieve a successful delivery in difficult circumstances. Men could claim authority and expertise from studying human anatomy in ways not open to women.

Elizabeth Parrock, a Staffordshire midwife, probably trained for her role in the same way as most eighteenth-century women, by practising among her friends. Female midwives emerged when women accustomed to attending births as a friend or relation acquired a wider reputation for their ability to manage the birthing room. In most deliveries where the baby presented normally (head down, facing their mother’s spine) the midwife’s task was to reassure the mother and give advice, while allowing nature to take its course. The two women would probably be surrounded by the female friends of the mother, and collectively the group would keep fathers out of the room.

If the birth became abnormal, due to the malpresentation of the baby or the distress or excess bleeding of the mother, midwives had few techniques at their disposal to achieve a good outcome. Long experience might have taught them how to ‘turn’ the baby in the womb, but the only other option was to call in a surgeon to do something drastic. Women rarely if ever survived a caesarean section before the second half of the nineteenth century.

Dempsey Portraits https://www.portrait.gov.au/image/87695/87987/
Depicting Mary or Elizabeth Leagrove, a gaol attendant in Ipswich, 1823

We don’t of course know what Elizabeth Parrock looked like. The image above is the one we have used to illustrate her in our card game for the project. We do know that she was earlier called Elizabeth Floyd, and was married to George Parrock at Bilston, Staffordshire in 1752. The couple had at least three children, baptised in Bilston and Wednesbury 1756-1760. Elizabeth, therefore, fitted the typical profile for a midwife, being a woman with children of her own but whose children were mature, allowing her to leave her household to work. We know from the overseers’ vouchers that she charged the lower sum for her deliveries, 2s6d per child, for her work in Wednesbury in the 1780s. She was the only woman recorded in the Wednesbury vouchers so far as a midwife, paid for the delivery of just three babies, yet her association with midwifery was strong enough to ensure she was described as a midwife at the time of her burial. The vouchers similarly show that her husband George Parrock was employed by the parish to mend shoes.

Elizabeth is unusual because we can know something about her working life other than her name. Most women who worked as midwives left no records of their business at all, so parish payments for delivering pauper babies is one of the few ways to see them in action. She is also unusual in that female midwives were typically paid immediately after the child was born and did not need to issue receipts, whereas male midwives allowed parents to owe him the money: consequently relatively few female midwives crop up elsewhere in our project database, with only one named midwife per county so far.

Sources: Staffordshire Archives D4383/6/1/9/1/14/20, D4383/6/1/9/2/80, Wednesbury St Bartholomew overseers’ vouchers; marriage of 29 June 1752 Bilston; burial of 4 June 1787 Wednesbury St Bartholomew.

Thomas Village, workhouse governor (c.1785-1866)

By Alannah Tomkins

If it takes a village to raise a child, did it also take a Village to run a workhouse? This is clearly a rather clumsy play on the surname of the Darlaston workhouse governor in the 1820s, but it also raises a more serious question about the tenor of workhouse life.

Thomas Village was allegedly born in Birmingham in 1785 or 1786, but his baptism has not been found. He first emerges in genealogical data in 1810, when he married Ann Osborn (also in Birmingham). Thereafter, and despite their unusual surname, the couple do not resurface once more until their appearance in the Darlaston overseers’ vouchers. It seems possible that they did not have any children, as they were both in their mid-30s at the time of marriage and no relevant baptisms appear in the 1810s.

https://forebears.io/surnames/village
The surname ‘Village’ is now more prevalent in South Africa than in any other country, with a relative concentration of people in Limpopo.

By 1823 the Villages were master and matron of the Darlaston workhouse, catering for between 25 and 30 inmates. Thomas undertook other work on the parish’s behalf, including making journeys on poor-law business and holding sales of goods taken from Darlaston residents in distress, although whether for non-payment of the poor rate is not specified. This suggests that Thomas was also the salaried overseer, also known as assistant or permanent overseer, for Darlaston.

This experience of workhouse management led to future employment for the husband and wife team, while the New Poor Law extended the scale of workhouse management experiences: in 1841 Thomas and Ann Village were the master and matron of the Erdington Union workhouse, in a building formerly used as the Erdington parish workhouse. At that time they were responsible for 123 other residents ranging from those in infancy to one nonagenarian.

They earned enough to retire before the 1851 census, when they were described as a ‘retired plate worker’ and ‘former dressmaker’ respectively. Familiarity with textiles was probably a significant plus for a prospective institutional matron, but it is less clear why a background in metal-working was indicative of success for a master. Ann died in 1862 at the romantic address ‘Shakespeare Cottage’ and Thomas died in 1866. They were both buried in the Warstone Lane Cemetery, Birmingham.

How responsible might Thomas and Ann Village have been for setting the tone of institutional life in their workhouses? Research on autobiographical sources for later in the nineteenth century suggests that staff could be central to establishing an atmosphere of either intimidation or of homeliness. The Erdington Union was known in the later nineteenth century for a rather uncompromising attitude to poor relief, but this does not mean that the Villages pursued harshness as a policy in earlier decades.

There is one shred of evidence for the relationship between the Villages and the resident poor: when Thomas Village died he was worth less than £100 and the sole executrix of his will was one Mary Ann Skelton, spinster of Darlaston. She was not known to be a relative of either Thomas or Ann. Instead, she had been a resident of the Erdington workhouse in 1851 who became the household servant of the couple in their old age and certainly by 1861. Who knew that a former and future pauper might act as executrix for a Governor? Mary Ann Skelton was in the West Bromwich Union workhouse in 1871 and 1881 and probably died in West Bromwich in 1891.

There is no guarantee, of course, that the relationship between the Villages and Skelton was cordial, but the only time she is known to have lived outside a workhouse from 1851 to her death was with them as a servant in 1861, and Thomas trusted her in a legal capacity above (for example) his surviving sisters (Mary Village 1790-1871 and Elizabeth Village 1799-1869) or any nephews and nieces by his other siblings. Whatever social distance was imagined to exist between workhouse staff and their charges was not necessarily strictly observed, and arguably narrowed in later life.

Sources: D1149/6/2/8 Darlaston overseers’ vouchers 1823; 1841, 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881 census; marriage of 5 March 1810; National Probate Calendar; Birmingham Daily Gazette 18 December 1862; www.workhouses.org.uk

Benjamin Holland (1794–1877), Hairdresser and Perfumer, Lichfield

By Peter Collinge

Benjamin Holland submitted quarterly bills amounting to 12s each to the overseers of St Mary’s, Lichfield, for dressing hair and shaving the poor.[1] The earliest surviving bill is dated 1822; the last dates from 1837. The wording of the bills does not make it clear as to whether Holland went to the workhouse in Sandford Street or whether the inmates went to his premises in Tamworth Street. Given the limited opportunities during the day for inmates to leave workhouses, it was probably the former. The bills were drawn up by Benjamin. The money was either collected by Benjamin or by his first wife Sarah. After Sarah’s death, the bills were signed by Benjamin only.


Figure 1: LD20/6/6/ no item number, Lichfield, St Mary’s, Benjamin Holland, Michaelmas the 29, 1827

When Holland started his business is unknown, but he is listed in Parson and Bradshaw’s directory of 1818 and in Pigot’s directory of 1828–29.[2]

Holland was the son of George and Mary Holland, and was baptised at St Chad’s, Lichfield, on 24 January 1796.[3] By his first wife Sarah, he had three children: Thomas, baptised 22 February 1824; Mary, baptised 25 May 1828; and William, baptised 27 June 1830.[4]


Figure 2: LD20/6/6/ no item number, Lichfield, St Mary’s, Benjamin Holland, 1828.

Sarah (b.1792) died in 1832 aged 40 and was buried on 12 January at St Michael’s.[5] This was common for the city. St Mary’s had no burial ground whilst St Michael’s extended to seven acres.

Benjamin Holland married subsequently spinster Mary Collins at St Chad’s on 20 March 1834. The register was signed by Holland: Mary with her mark.[6]

At the time of the 1841 Census the Holland household consisted of Benjamin, his second wife Mary, his three children by his first wife, and a female servant Catherine Sawyer, aged 20.[7] A Catherine Sawyer, daughter of paper maker William Sawyer and his wife Sarah of Stowe Street, was baptised 9 December 1821 at St Chad’s.[8]


Figure 3: LD20/6/6/ no item number, Lichfield, St Mary’s, Benjamin Holland, 1829.

Ten years later, the household consisted of Benjamin and Mary, son William, aged 19, a cordwainer; and William Sawyer, aged seven, described as a nephew.[9] Searching parish registers shows that a William Sawyer was baptised on 19 October 1843 at St Michael’s. His mother was Catherine Sawyer, spinster, was a workhouse inmate.[10] Were these William and Catherine Sawyer the same people who later became part of the Holland household? Their ages fit.

The Lichfield Poor Law Union Minute Book for 10 November 1843 contains the following entry: ‘Ordered that proceedings be taken against the Putative Father of Catherine Sawyer’s Bastard Child chargeable to [the parish of ] St Chad.’[11]

By 1861 the Holland household had contracted. Aside from Benjamin and Mary, the only other person resident at the time of the Census was nephew William, now a clockmaker.[12]

By 1871 the household consisted of just Benjamin and Mary.[13] Throughout this time the Hollands were resident in Tamworth Street.

Benjamin died in 1877 aged 83. He was buried at St Michael’s on 25 March.[14]

[1] SRO, LD20/6/6/, no item nos., Lichfield, St Mary’s Overseers’ Vouchers, Benjamin Holland, 1827, 1828, 1829.

[2] Parson, W. and Bradshaw, T., Staffordshire General and Commercial Directory presenting an Alphabetical Arrangement of the Names and Residences of the Nobility, Gentry, Merchants and Inhabitants in General (Manchester: J. Leigh, 1818), 174;  Pigot and Co., 1828, National Commercial Directory for 1828-9, Cheshire, Cumberland &c  (London and Manchester: J. Pigot and Co.), 716.

[3] SRO, D29/1/8, St Chad’s Parish Register.

[4] SRO, D20/1/4, St Mary’s Parish Register, Baptisms.

[5] SRO, D27/1/8, St Michael’s Parish Register.

[6] SRO, D29/1/8, St Chad’s Parish Register.

[7] TNA, HO107/1008/2 1841 Census.

[8] SRO, D29/1/3 St Chad’s Parish Register.

[9] TNA, HO107/2014 1851 Census.

[10] SRO, D27/1/7, St Michael’s Parish Register, Baptisms.

[11] SRO, LD458/1/2, Lichfield Union Minute Book, 4 February 1842 – 12 November 1847.

[12] TNA, RG9/1972 1861 Census.

[13] TNA, RG10/2913, 1871 Census.

[14] SRO, D27/1/12, St Michael’s Parish Register.

William Snape, Mercer and Draper, Lichfield, part II

By Peter Collinge

William Snape died in 1833 (see entry for William Snape, 9 July 2019). He left no will. His widow, Ann, applied for letters of administration to the Bishop’s Court in Lichfield by which she would gain the authority to administer her husband’s estate.[1] The papers state that William died on 22 March 1833. His personal estate amounted to no more than £600. As was customary for the time, those wishing to administer the estate of a deceased entered into a guarantee or bond to carry out all necessary duties in relation to it. In this instance, those entering the bond, calculated at twice the value of the estate, were Ann Snape and John Dadley, gentleman, of Edgbaston, Warwickshire.

One of the responsibilities in dealing with a deceased’s estate was to ‘make, or cause to be made a true and perfect inventory of all and singular the goods, chattels and credits of the said deceased’.[2]  To do this involved calling in all debts, and settling accounts with creditors. Although it came after probate was granted, Ann Snape placed the following notice in Aris’s Birmingham Gazette:

‘Persons having any claim or demand upon the estate of Mr. WILLIAM SNAPE, of Lichfield, Draper, deceased, are requested to send the particulars thereof and the nature of their securities, if any there be, to -Mrs. Ann Snape, his Widow.’[3]

[1] SRO, P/C/11, Admon William Snape, 30 August 1833.

[2] SRO, P/C/11, Admon William Snape, 30 August 1833.

[3] Aris’s Birmingham Gazette, 14 October 1833, p. 3.

Elizabeth Dawes, Grocer, Lichfield, part II

By Peter Collinge

Elizabeth Dawes’ husband, Benjamin, died in 1817. In his short will dated 14 July 1813, witnessed by William Willdey and Thomas Roberts, he left his wife all his goods and property.[1] His wearing apparel was to be distributed by Elizabeth at her discretion to Benjamin’s brothers, William, Edward, Joseph, and James Dawes, and to his sisters Sarah Bradney and Anna Bradeny. The sisters lived in Bridgnorth, Shropshire. If Elizabeth remarried the property ‘she was then worth shall be held in trust for Ann Willdey my niece but not to be paid to the said Ann Willdey till my wife Elizabeth Dawes’ decease’.

Elizabeth was appointed as the sole executrix giving an indication of Benjamin’s confidence in his wife to settle his estate and to manage her own finances. As suspected (see the entry for Elizabeth Dawes, 9 July 2019) Benjamin and Elizabeth had no surviving children to whom the grocery business could be left.

William Willdey, who witnessed Benjamin Dawes’ will, was most likely the father of the Ann Willdey included in the 1841 Census who was living with Elizabeth Dawes.[2] William Willdey married Ann Barisford on 23 June 1799.[3]

[1] SRO, P/C/11, Will of Benjamin Dawes, 1 September 1817.

[2] TNA, HO107/1008/3, 1841 Census, Elizabeth Dawes, Lichfield.

[3] SRO,  D20/1/4, St Mary’s, Lichfield, Parish Register.

William Snape (c.1774-1833), Mercer and Draper, Lichfield, Staffordshire

By John Hughes

William Snape was a mercer and draper in Market St, Lichfield, who was used by the overseers to supply fabrics, cloths and threads to the workhouse. He supplied fabrics such as blue linen, drab calico, Irish linen, blue print, buttons and thread.[1] This suggests that the workhouse may have been making some form of uniform or sets of apprentices’ clothes (see ‘Blue Duffle’ entry 28 March 2019). We have vouchers for him supplying the workhouse between 1824-1830. The bill from 1824 has a pre-printed ink header across the top. It shows a tombstone with a shrouded urn on top with two figures either side one of which represents Liberty with her scales and sword. This suggests that his business was doing well as he could afford to add the headers.[2] The bills are still hand signed though by him, proving that he was literate. The header also states that William furnished funerals meaning that he supplied all the drapes, clothes and fabrics used in the funeral and he would rent them out. This at the time had become a lucrative business.

William Snape, son of Isaac Snape, was baptised on 24 July 1774. William Snape’s registered age in the calendar of wills was 59. This would mean his year of birth would be 1774. William Snape the elder married Anne Jackson in 1801 in St Mary’s, Lichfield.[3] We believe that they had a son, also called William, as there is a baptism that took place in May 1806 with reference to them.[4] At the moment we have no evidence suggesting that the son carried on the business or went into the same profession as he is not listed in any trade directories and we have no vouchers after the date William dies. There is however, a Mrs Anne Snape listed in White’s 1834 directory. She is not listed under any business, and had moved from Market St to Beacon St. This suggests that she was living off independent means.[5] There is a possibility that it could be the widow of William Snape as she is listed as Mrs Anne Snape. William did not leave a will when he died, however, letters of administration were drawn up after his death.[6]

The vouchers suggest that the business of William Snape was lucrative and successful as the total amount paid for the four bills we have is £22 9s 6½d. It is then surprising to find that on 17 April 1821 there was a bankruptcy case in the London Gazette for William Snape, ‘of the City of Lichfield, Mercer, Draper, Dealer and Chapman’.[7] There were then three meetings arranged on the 14, 15 and 29 of May at the Talbot Arms, Rugeley, Staffordshire. The first meeting was for Snape to make a full ‘disclosure of his estate and effects’ and also for any creditors to prove their claims. The second sitting was to choose assignees, who were responsible to gather in all the debts owed to William Snape and the administration of his bankruptcy. The final sitting on the 29 was to finish the examination and for William Snape to declare everything he had, to state all his debtors and creditors. The solicitors for the case were Mr Thomas Gnosall Parr, of Bird Street, Lichfield and Messrs. Constable and Kirk, solicitors, Symond’s Inn, Chancery Lane, London.[8] The date for the final dividend to be paid was 16 December 1822 at the Talbot Arms, Rugeley, where all creditors should prove their debts. Any claims after that date would be disallowed.[9] This suggests that it brought an end to everything that the commissioners were going to do, therefore, freeing Snape from the bankruptcy. We know that he recovered as the vouchers state that he was supplying the workhouse just two years after being cleared of his bankruptcy.

William Snape died and was buried in March 1833 at St Michael’s, Lichfield.[10]

[1] Staffordshire Record Office (hereafter SRO) LD20/6/6 no item no., Lichfield, St Mary’s overseer’s voucher, 1824; SRO LD20/6/6 no item no., Lichfield, St Mary’s overseer’s voucher, 1830.

[2] SRO LD20/6/6 no item no., Lichfield, St Mary’s overseer’s voucher, 1824.

[3] SRO D20/1/9, Lichfield, St Mary’s Parish registers, 1801.

[4] SRO D20/1/3, Lichfield, St Mary’s Parish Records, Baptisms, 1806.

[5] William White, History, Gazetteer and Directory of Staffordshire (Sheffield: 1834).

[6] SRO P/C/11, Lichfield, Calendar of Peculiars, 30 August 1833.

[7] London Gazette, 17 April 1821, 877.

[8] London Gazette, 16 October 1821, 2059; London Gazette, 17 April 1821, 877.

[9] London Gazette, 23 November 1822, 1929.

[10] SRO D27/1/9, Lichfield, St Michael’s, Burials, 29 March 1833, 191.

Elizabeth Dawes (1769-1852), Grocer, Lichfield, Staffordshire

By John Hughes

Elizabeth Dawes was a grocer in St John’s Street, Lichfield, who was used by the overseers of the workhouse to supply groceries and sundries such as rice, oatmeal, potash and salt from June to September 1823.[1] The workhouse made 22 purchases from her business between these months suggesting that her business was in frequent contact with the workhouse. In a second bill from February to March 1823, she was selling the same items: rice, black pepper and treacle. Although it is a shorter bill it proves that she was in business with the workhouse for at least nine months.[2] The first bill was not written by her but by another party. The second, however, was written and signed by her as demonstrated by a comparison between the handwriting on the bills and her marriage certificate.[3] This means that she was not illiterate but that she possibly employed someone showing that the business must be stable and possibly profitable.

Elizabeth Dawes was registered under ‘Shopkeepers and Dealers in Groceries and Sundries’ in Pigot and Co.’s 1828 directory and White’s directory of 1834.[4] In Pigot’s directory she is registered along with 16 other ‘Shopkeepers and Dealers in Groceries and Sundries’, three of whom were women and nine were men. Twelve grocers were also listed separately, none of whom were female. As she was listed in Parson’s and Bradshaw’s 1818 directory as a ‘Grocer and Tea Dealer’, this means she was running the business for at least 16 years.[5]

Elizabeth Barisford was born in 1768.[6] She married Benjamin Dawes on 24 September 1797 in Lichfield at St Mary’s.[7] Benjamin died and was buried in St Michael’s, Lichfield, in 1817.[8] We do not think that they had any children as there are no baptisms recorded for the Parish of St Mary’s with a reference to them.[9] However, in the 1841 Census there is a Jane Wildley, 20, listed as living with her but the connection between Elizabeth and Jane is not stated.[10] Elizabeth is also listed as having a female servant, called Mary Hall, aged 13, living with her. This is an indication of her middle class status as she could afford to employ a servant. A servant would free up Elizabeth’s time allowing her to focus on and run her business instead.

By the 1851 Census Elizabeth was 83 and registered as an inmate annuitant which means that she was living off the profits of her investments or savings suggesting that her business had been successful enough to support her retirement. She had also moved address and was now living on Tamworth Street. She was now a member of someone else’s household possibly family but we do not know.[11] Whilst she was no longer working, the fact that she was also no longer living in her own house suggests that she might be living in reduced circumstances.

Elizabeth died on 10 July 1852 at the age of 84. She was buried in St Michael’s. Lichfield alongside her husband Benjamin.[12]

[1] Staffordshire Records Office (hereafter SRO), LD20/6/6 No item no., Lichfield St Mary’s overseer’s voucher, 1823.

[2]SRO LD20/6/6 No item no., Lichfield, St Mary’s overseer’s voucher, 1823,

[3] SRO, D20/1/9, Lichfield, St Mary’s Parish Register, 24 September 1797.

[4] John Pigot and Co., Pigot and Co.’s National Directory, 1828-1829, part 2 (Manchester and London, 1828), 717; William White, History, Gazetteer and Directory of Staffordshire (Sheffield: 1834), 161.

[5] W. Parson and T. Bradshaw, Staffordshire General and Commercial Directory (1818), 186.

[6] St Michael’s Church Yard, Lichfield, Gravestone; D20/1/9, Lichfield, St Mary’s Parish Register, 24 September 1797.

[7] SRO, D20/1/9, Lichfield, St Mary’s Parish Register, 24 September 1797.

[8] SRO, D/27/1/9, Lichfield, St Michael’s Parish Register, 1 April 1817.

[9] SRO, D20/1/9, Lichfield, St Mary’s Parish Register, Baptisms.

[10] TNA, HO107/1008/3, 1841 Census, Elizabeth Dawes, Lichfield.

[11] TNA, HO107/2014, 1851 Census, Elizabeth Dawes, Lichfield.

[12] Lichfield, St Michael’s Church Yard, Gravestone.

Elizabeth Fox. Overseer of the Poor, 1838.

By Malbedenk

Gnosall Poor Law Vouchers contain one (Reference D951/5/81/147) which names Elizabeth Fox as the Overseer of the Poor. As it is rather unusual to find a woman I looked to see what I could find out about Elizabeth Fox.

Not knowing if she was married or single I first looked for a death in Gnosall 1838-1841 and as none appeared I started with the 1841 Census which revealed two Elizabeth Foxes in the area.

  1. Elizabeth Fox, born circa 1781 a Farmer at Coley Hall with no apparent husband.

Thomas Fox of the Parish of Newport [Salop] married Elizabeth Whittler of this Parish, at Forton (an adjoining Parish to Gnosall) on 5 Oct 1801 both signing X.

Thomas was buried at Forton on 4 Oct 1831 aged 51with an abode of Coley.

All their children were baptised at All Saints, Forton

The 1851 Census only has one Elizabeth Fox which is the retired Farmer, living at Moreton Park, Moreton, Newport. [Moreton is one of the Quarters of Gnosall] By 1861 this Elizabeth is back at Coley Farm with her son and was buried on 17 Aug 1861 at Forton with an abode of Coley.

2.Elizabeth Fox, born circa 1791 in 1841 is living with Thomas Fox a shoemaker in Gnosall

Thomas Fox of the Parish of Eccleshall married Elizabeth Edge of this Parish at Seighford on 17 Jan 1825. Both signed with a Mark. Seighford is about 6 miles from Gnosall. This may be the one who moved to Gnosall but no children have been identified from this marriage in any parish.

Thomas Fox of Gnosall was buried in St. Lawrence, Gnosall on 6 Feb 1844 aged 66. (DOB about 1781)

As she does not appear in the 1851 Census, or to have died,  I looked for a marriage and found one in Gnosall on 1 April 1844 when John Moore a widowed shoe maker, with an abode of the Hollies [part of Gnosall] married Elizabeth Fox a widowed Housekeeper, with an abode of Gnosall. Both signed with a mark. The service was conducted by the Rev. Fearon Jenkinson and the witnesses were Ann and Martha Jenkinson

None of this is making it easy to identify which Elizabeth is the Overseer. Neither the Order Book of Select Vestry for the Concerns of the Poor 1821-1838 Ref. D951/4/5 nor the Vestry Minutes 1835-1952 Ref D951/4/7 make any reference to the Appointment of Elizabeth Fox as Overseer of the Poor.

At a Vestry Meeting on 23 Dec 1835 Thomas Fox signs as one of the Ratepayers but this is no help as both Elizabeths married Thomas’ and Elizabeth the farmer had a son Thomas who could have succeeded his Father who died 1831.

On the face of it Elizabeth the farmer is more likely to be the Overseer as she probably is more likely to be a Ratepayer. However all the official record such as BMD records are in Forton Parish. 

On the other hand Elizabeth the wife of the shoemaker lives in Gnosall and her second husband has appeared as a supplier in the Poor Law vouchers.

Any further information will be posted later.