Rachel Carter

1822

A Rachel Carter married a James Legg of Castle Eaton at Hannington Church on 18 March 1822. Rachel is described in the record as ‘of this parish’, but I have found no records of her or any Carters in Hannington that would suggest she was born there. There is just one clue in the marriage record – Charles Carter. Was he Rachel’s father or her brother? It is interesting also that the record says ‘with consent of parents’ – did James Hewer give his consent, I wonder? Or did James Legg live with Legg relatives who would by this time have been regarded as his parents?

Source: Hannington parish records, at Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre, Chippenham

1823

On 16 November 1823, James and Rachel’s first child, Ann, was baptised at South Cerney, Gloucestershire. Their surname is given as Yewer [Hewer].

Source: South Cerney parish records, Gloucestershire Archives

1825

In December 1825, the family were removed from South Cerney to Castle Eaton. Presumably, they found themselves without any work and had applied for poor relief. Rachel was pregnant with their second child by this time.

Source: Gloucestershire Archives, Overseers, P71 OV 3/2/2/44

1826

On 26 July 1826, Emma, daughter of James and Rachel Legge, was baptised at Castle Eaton.

Source: Castle Eaton parish records, at Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre, Chippenham

Notice that on their return to Castle Eaton they have reverted to the surname Legg by which they were known in that village.

1829

On 18 January 1829, Francis, son of James and Rachel Legge, was baptised at Castle Eaton.

Source: Castle Eaton parish records, at Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre, Chippenham

1831

Elizabeth, daughter of James and Rachel Legg, was baptised on 22 May 1831 at Castle Eaton.

Source: Castle Eaton parish records, at Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre, Chippenham

1834

John, son of James and Rachel Hewer, was baptised on 7 December 1834 at Castle Eaton.

Source: Castle Eaton parish records, at Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre, Chippenham

Note that they have reverted to Hewer again.

1837

The family is left without its head, as James Legg alias Hewer was transported to New South Wales for 7 years for stealing hurdles in 1837.

1841

The 1841 census shows Rachel and the four younger children were then living in Marston Maisey, Wiltshire and were using the name Hewer.

Source: 1841 Census, Wiltshire, Marston Maisey, District 5 (HO 107/1178/19)

We know, now, that James Legge alias Hewer was serving out his sentence in New South Wales in 1841 but the whereabouts of their daughter Ann is uncertain.

Why had the family adopted the name Hewer by 1841? James Legge had alternated the surnames Legg(e) and Hewer since at least 1822/1823. Perhaps they decided to finally distance themselves from his crimes and attempt to start afresh when he was first transported in 1837? However, as the stories of his children show, a fresh, law-abiding start was not to be!

1842

On 5 January 1842, Rachael [sic] and Francis Hewer were ‘charged on the oath of Edmund Ruck with stealing at Down Ampney on the 3^rd day of January a quantity of hay, his property’.

The case was adjourned to the March Quarter Sessions on 1 March 1842 in Gloucester. Meanwhile, Rachel and Francis were on remand in Gloucester Gaol. They were found not guilty and discharged from prison on 3 March 1842.

The following information was noted in the Gaol records:

Source: Gloucestershire Archives, Q/Gc 5/6, MF1464

Notes:

1 Down Ampney is not far from Marston Maisey where Rachel and Francis were in 1841.

2 Location of Normanton is unclear. I have found an Edmond Ruck age 20 at Ampney Down in the 1841 census. In 1851 he is listed as a yeoman farmer. An Edmund Ruch age 55 is also to be found at Naunton, nr Stow in 1841. However, the former Edmond seems most likely. Could ‘Normanton’ be a mishearing of Maiseyhampton in the local dialect?

3 Hallier: meaning unclear, some seem to think it is a variant of ‘haulier’, but it also refers to a net for catching birds which might be a job done by farm labourers in rural communities?

4 Abbreviations used in prison records:

R: able to read

W: able to write

N: unable to read or write

Imp: read and/or write imperfectly

W: well (sometimes written in full

Sup: superior level of education

1844

In 1844, Rachel spent time in Devizes Prison for evading excise laws, according to the records of the Warminster Sessions. However, no details have survived, except for a report in The Wiltshire Independent on 11 July 1844, which reveals an interesting detail!

Cricklade Petty Sessions, July 7^th, 1844

Joseph Smith and George Simmonds, sons of respectable tradesmen in this town, were charged by Richard Richings, of Marston Maisey, with having, on the first day of June last, violently assaulted and thrown him into the river near the town. Mr White, of Fairford, appeared for the complainant; and Mr Lovett for the defendants. It appeared that the complainant had been the means of convicting one Rachel Hewer, who kept a house of ill-fame at Marston, for selling beer without a license, and in so doing had incurred the displeasure of some parties who were in the habit of frequenting the house in question; who, to be avenged it seems, determined to inflict the punishment of ducking. The case was adjourned from the Petty Sessions, at Swindon, to give the defendants the opportunity of proving an alibi, which they did most satisfactorily, and the case was of course dismissed.

That the complainant was assaulted and monstrously maltreated, there could be no doubt, and for having performed a laudable public duty. That he should, however, have sworn so positively at Swindon and Cricklade to the defendants, as being two of the parties most active in the perpetration of the offence, appeared, after his cross-examination, and the examination of the numerous respectable witnesses on behalf of the defendants, very remarkable. Smith was proved to have been at home at the time the assault was said to have occurred; and Simmonds was proved to have been a mere looker on, at a considerable distance from the spot. If the complainant’s mistake as to identity was a wilful one, which, however, we would fain hope it was not, no punishment could be too severe for having subjected innocent men to the public disgrace of so serious a charge. Such was the opinion of the people as to the credibility of the complainant, that it was thought prudent that he should be protected home by a policeman.

From The Wiltshire Independent, 11 July 1844

So Rachel was living in Marston Maisey and running a 'house of ill-fame' - this is not particularly surprising in the light of later events involving her daughters, Emma and Elizabeth, from 1845 to 1851!

1845

James and Rachel’s daughter Emma was in found guilty in June 1845 of stealing ‘one silver watch, a steel chain and two keys value £3’ at Cricklade. The witness deposition tells us that Rachel was present when the crime was committed and there is a suggestion that Rachel may have aided and abetted the crime! The deposition also suggests that Rachel and Emma were living in Maisey Hampton at this time.

Also in 1845, James Legg alias Hewer, having returned from New South Wales, was in trouble again. Probably at the same Sessions at which Emma was convicted, James was found guilty of stealing ‘wearing apparel’ and transported again, this time for 10 years to Norfolk Island and Van Dieman’s Land.

1846

Rachel died of consumption on 18 November 1846.

To find that Rachel died in Burford is not necessarily surprising. The 1851 census finds Emma and Elizabeth living in Burford. There are also some Oxford Quarter Sessions records relating to an Elizabeth Hewer in Burford/Bampton at around this time. These are still to be researched.

Life was clearly hard for this family. James Legg alias Hewer’s record of petty crime must have arisen from his need to feed and clothe his family in times which were particularly difficult for agricultural labourers. He was in trouble with law at least 6 times that we know of – possibly more, but he was lucky not to be caught. His periods of absence meant that the family had to manage any way they could and all of the children (except Ann) found themselves in court at some time or other.

Rachel’s year of birth?

The clues:

1841 census: 40 – suggests a birth year of c.1801

1842 goal record: 48 – suggests a birth year of c.1794

1846 death certificate: 51 or 57 – suggests birth years of 1794 or 1789

Rachel’s place of birth?

In the 1841 census, Rachel stated that she was not born in Wiltshire. Evidence seems to suggest that she may have come from South Cerney in Gloucestershire, not simply because that is where the family were when their first child was born. A number of Poor Law Overseers’ records for South Cerney relate to a Rachel Carter and a Charles Carter. While no baptism for Rachel has been found in this parish, there were Carters living here and I have found no other Carters in surrounding parishes. It is possible that at the time of her marriage to James, Rachel had work in Hannington.

For now, I would suggest that Rachel Carter was born in South Cerney, possibly in about 1794.