In
earlier parts of this Blog, I have told the story of this colourful
couple and their children. One of them, William (1841-1905) was to
become my great-grandfather. Their first child, Jane, was baptised at
Earl Shilton, Leicestershire, which was Thomas's home parish, less
than two months after the marriage, on 8th March 1829. Sarah would
have been at least seven months pregnant when they were married. Only
two further children were baptised. They were Mary and William in
1836 and 1838. William was to die at only 10 months. Two others, Ann
and Richard, born in 1831 and 1834, have no recorded baptism. Clearly
this was not a happy union as by 1839 Thomas was living in
Nottinghamshire with another woman, Maria Cooper, with whom he had a
daughter, Elizabeth. Meanwhile, Sarah was cohabiting with Thomas
Brown and she had two illegitimate children, presumably by him, named
as Joseph in 1843 and Sarah in 1845. She was still living with Thomas
Brown at her death in 1862!
By
June 1841, Jane Swinfield was languishing in Millbank Penitentiary,
London, apparently aged 13. In Part 3 of the Blog, I reported how she
had been tried by the Leicester Quarter Sessions on 4th January 1841
for larceny and sentenced to seven years transportation to Australia.
This week, the latest addition to FindMyPast's extensive collection
of databases, a collection of British newspapers from 1750 to 1900
was put online. Of course, the first thing that interested me was,
“What Swinfield articles are included?” Brief accounts of her
trial and conviction were published in the Leicester Mercury on 9th
January and the Leicester Chronicle on 16th January 1841. These tell
us that, at the age of only 11, she had stolen some quite valuable
property from her mistress, Charlotte Bugg, in August 1840. She was
eventually pardoned and released in August 1841.
In Part 16, I wrote about what appeared to be her death in the OldWindsor Union Workhouse on 23rd November 1854. She had died aged only 26 of phthisis. There is no other woman in my database who could have been this deceased and, of course, there are no surviving records of the Workhouse for that year. Imagine my surprise when I discovered (thanks to Joan Rowbottom of the Guild of One-Name Studies who completed the Market Bosworth marriage challenge) that a Jane Swinfield, aged 20, had married in Bagworth church, Leicestershire, on 26th March 1848. This is the parish where her two brothers, Richard and William, were working as coal miners in 1851, but were incorrectly given the surname of Hewit. As Jane's father was recorded as Thomas Swinfield, FWK (framework knitter), there is no doubt that she was the child christened at Earl Shilton in March 1829. Her husband was Joseph Rudens, a collier.
Leicester Mercury - 9th January 1841 |
In Part 16, I wrote about what appeared to be her death in the OldWindsor Union Workhouse on 23rd November 1854. She had died aged only 26 of phthisis. There is no other woman in my database who could have been this deceased and, of course, there are no surviving records of the Workhouse for that year. Imagine my surprise when I discovered (thanks to Joan Rowbottom of the Guild of One-Name Studies who completed the Market Bosworth marriage challenge) that a Jane Swinfield, aged 20, had married in Bagworth church, Leicestershire, on 26th March 1848. This is the parish where her two brothers, Richard and William, were working as coal miners in 1851, but were incorrectly given the surname of Hewit. As Jane's father was recorded as Thomas Swinfield, FWK (framework knitter), there is no doubt that she was the child christened at Earl Shilton in March 1829. Her husband was Joseph Rudens, a collier.
1848 Marriage of Jane Swinfield at Bagworth |
Leicester Mercury - 21st August 1847 |
It
would appear that the marriage of 1829 had broken down almost
immediately and that Jane was probably their only legitimate child!
Thomas has sought solace with Maria Cooper, the Chartist movement,
and eventually spent the last 40 years of his life in Portsmouth, New
Hampshire.
But where was Jane in 1851? Maybe she just escaped enumeration.
ReplyDelete