Go to start of previous page ("Trying to find Anne")
So why did Gilbert and Anne delay their marriage until after their children were born?
One particular interest was to find out what happened to William Wilmshurst in the hope of explaining this. In the 1851 census Anne was living with William jnr at her cousin’s home in Shoreditch and there is no mention of her husband, William snr.
In 1850 there was a death of a William Wilmshurst recorded at Stepney, about 2 miles from Shoreditch and Wilmshurst being a fairly rare surname this seemed the most likely explanation though some time later another researcher I had contacted came up with an interesting alternative. In the 1851 Census there was a William Wilmshurst recorded as being in Portland Prison in Dorset but he was described as a Hop Merchant born at Cranbrook in Kent. Our William had described himself as a Merchant on his marriage certificate without specifying what sort of merchant but it seemed unlikely that a Hop Merchant would be living in the East End of London. It seemed less likely than the local death, though prison would be an explanation why William wasn’t at home for the 1851 census. His marriage certificate gave William’s father as John Wilmshurst, a banker, and looking this up on the internet I found a history of John Wilmshurst who was both a Banker and a Corn Merchant at Cranbrook, perhaps giving a link between our William and the one in prison, so this seemed worth checking out further though this was by no means conclusive as it turned out that Cranbrook had a large number of Wilmshurst families and most Wilmshursts came from that area so our William was just one of many.
We soon found reports of the imprisoned William's pre-trial hearings which gave details of a number of cases of using forged cheques to obtain money and later discoveries proved that he was the person we were looking for. There is a lot of information about what happened but two very different stories emerge. One from the evidence given at his trial and the other from him in letters written by him and his family when trying to get him released from prison.
William’s story
First I will give his version, though this was often written in the hope of getting him out of prison, so it is difficult to tell how much of this is true.
William’s father, John, was a corn and hop trader, a partner in a local bank and owned three farms and eleven houses in Cranbrook. William was the only child of his father with his second wife and an element of the story seems to be an ongoing problem between William and his half-sister’s husband, a Mr Ebenezer Beaman. An early issue had been some stolen cheques that disappeared from Ebenezer’s possession when he worked for the bank which later mysteriously reappeared. Ebenezer thought that William was responsible for this but the bank never took any action against him and William moved on to another branch of the same bank soon after. This minor incident was brought up 15 years later, indicating the strength of feeling between them (at least on William’s side).
Ebenezer was also involved in corn and hop trading and been a partner in a bank in Cranbrook which he described as a branch of the “Weald of Kent Bank”. (Bank’s seem to have sometimes had a “company name” and a “bank name” (see below) and I am uncertain whether this was the same bank where William’s father was a partner which was called “Buss, Hague, Wilmshurst & Co”. “The Weald of Kent Bank” was a name used by a previous bank at Cranbrook that Buss and Wilmshurst had owned and, though I have not found it used for the later bank, I am inclined to think that Ebenezer and William’s father were joint owners of the same bank).
[Cranbrook Banks: In the early 1800’s “Watts, Buss & Co” ran a bank in Cranbrook and issued its own bank notes under the names of “Cranbrook Bank” and “Weald of Kent Bank”. John Wilmshurst joined as a partner but the bank was later sold and became “Bishop & Co” in 1813 again being also known as “The Weald of Kent Bank” but this went bankrupt and closed in 1814. Another bank then existed in Cranbrook but went bankrupt in 1826 and the bank “Buss, Hague, Wilmshurst and Co” opened, Buss and Wilmshurst being owners of the previous bank sold in 1813. This is the only bank I know of in Cranbrook at this time and it was sold to London and Country Bank in 1843 so I think this is the bank that Wilmshurst and Beaman were partners in].
In 1845, William’s father died and he was made an executor of the estate. At this time William decided to give up his position as a bank clerk and used his inheritance to set up as a hop dealer. However, he thought that much of his father’s estate was taken by Mr Beaman and his brother by fraudulent claims of expenses and debts charged against the estate for outstanding business with John Wilmshurst’s corn business. He also claimed that a number of banks which Mr Beaman either co-owned or had influence over brought various charges or set various traps to try to discredit William and possibly cover up the theft of money from his father’s estate.
Eventually one of these plans worked when they provided him with a legitimate cheque for a large amount of money which was made out in another person’s name and a letter authorising him to cash the cheque. Wilmshurst said that “[Mr] Bradstreet, the Cashier of the Oxford Bank, receiving a Banker’s Letter of Authority, paid your petitioner £4,000 in the name of Brown on faith of its contents as the best proof of the genuineness of that authority but when the said Bradstreet [was questioned at the trial] he swore he had lost this important letter of Authority and that he could remember nothing about it.” (his underlining). Most of the money was put into a newly opened account and Wilmshurst asked for £30 in cash and a cheque book for the new account and later used the cheque book believing it was valid. He was arrested soon after this, as the issuing bank now claimed that the cheque was a forgery.
He was then also charged for another forgery on a bank in Dorchester earlier in the year, but this case against him was brought despite the witness from the bank having doubts that he was the person who had carried out their fraud, William only being tried for it because of some similarity with the case in Oxford. At the time of the forgery in Dorchester he said he was in dispute with a person at London docks over money owed him as part of his business as a hop merchant and all through that week was regularly at his solicitors resolving this dispute so he could not have been in Dorchester. This solicitor in London, the solicitor’s clerk, an accountant involved and his Father-in-Law, who was supporting him, could have been called as witnesses at his trial but the solicitor was unwilling to travel to Oxford for the trial unless his expenses of £10 were paid, which William couldn’t afford, and also his defending solicitor at the trial had advised him not to call them because, he later found out, his solicitor had been influenced by Mr Beaman and the other bankers involved, to ensure that he was found guilty.
William, his wife and father in law, all wrote petitions to the Home Office asking for William’s release and arguing his innocence which is where most of the above comes from. The Home Office received many such letters for all prisoners and were very rarely persuaded by the contents. After the failure of one of these petitions by his father in law, William Fellows, about a year after Wilmshurst’s imprisonment, he attempted a different approach, writing a petition that gave a lot of information of Wilmshurst’s history which he hoped would persuade them to release him. Some of this would have happened before Fellows knew Wilmshurst so presumably it came from Wilmshurst and I don't know accurate the earlier history is, and especially on how well respected Wilmshurst was in the Banks he worked for. It varies slightly from Wilmshurst’s version above but I think it probably gives some idea of what had happened leading up to his arrest. After introductory comments the letter continues -
“Sir, William Wilmshurst is the son of a gentleman in Kent who for a number of years carried on the Business of Banker and Hop and Corn Merchant in the town of Cranbrook, where he was highly respected by all that knew him. He gave his Son a Merchantile (sic) Education, and placed him in his office to assist him in conducting the Banking Business. He looked forward to the day when his Son would be able to release him in the Banking Business by acting for him in his Room and stead and becoming a partner in the firm. He wished to make him as competent as possible and placed him for a time in the firm of the London and Westminster Bank where he conducted himself in such a way as to obtain the Confidence and Esteem of that firm who gave him the highest Commendation for Industry and Integrity when his father took him away to again assist him in his Banking Business, where he continued until the Death of his father, Enjoying the Respect and Esteem of all that knew him, as a promising young man whose prospects in life appeared of the Brightest Kind. But alas those prospects were doomed to experience a sad reverse in providence, for his father was in the habit of Dealing largely in Hops and Corn for [many] years and a great fall in the price of those Articles took place at a time when he was in possession of a large stock and he lost some thousands of pounds by the sale thereof, which caused him to mortgage his Estates for a large sum of money in order to enable him to meet his lawful demands and as providence Continued to [frown??] upon him he took it so to heart as to ?? and ?? so as to decline in health from Day to Day until he Died. His Estates were sold and his Children placed upon the wide world without a Father or Mother to protect them, or means to procure a livelihood thus their case was most deplorable, and all those hopes were blighted. In this state the London and Country Joint Stock Bank gave William Wilmshurst a situation in a branch of theirs at Aylesbury where he continued for some time Enjoying the Respect and Esteem of the Managers and others with a good prospect of doing well in the world, till in an unlucky moment he yielded to the advice of some persons at Aylesbury - gave up his situation and as he had by Economy, saved some [Y1-4] money he entered into trade as a Hop and Corn Merchant in the Borough of Southwark. But, not being acquainted with many persons in London and being of a Kind and unsuspecting turn of Mind he was soon surrounded(?) by an unprincipled set of Men who got his goods and defrauded him of his Money, which once more brought him to ruin on the wide world fundless and pennyless. In this state he wandered about Day to Day, using his utmost endeavour to obtain employment in a counting house, but all his endeavours were in vain and as he had a wife who was great with child and no means to procure for her or himself the Necessaries of Life, and being in Danger of starvation, these things so preyed upon his mind as to render his life bitter unto him, and at times he was more like a man deranged in his mind than otherwise, for as his wife informs me, he would sit and Cry like a Child by the hour, then he would become pensive and sad, pacing the [room?] with his [mouth open?] without uttering [a word] and at Night he would get out [of?] Bed and strip himself stark Naked and [pace?] the Room by the hour. Thus things went on till he suddenly left home on Wednesday Evening promising to Return on Friday the latest but alas he never Returned, for the next thing his Wife heard of him was he was in prison on a charge of forgery. Those tidings brought her into labour and at the Expiration of a Fortnight she gave birth to a Son which is now alive and well in health. Thus Sir, I have briefly stated a few things which may be viewed by your honour in as favourable Light as possible and induce you to remember his most Melancholy Case with a view to his benefit and the comfort of his disconsolate Wife and Child. I am Right Honourable Sir your most humble and obedient servant
William Fellows”
The comment added to the document by the Home Office is - “This is a history of the prisnrs life but nothing is said regarding the Offence of which he has been convicted” so it gave them no reason to review the case.
After being in prison for two years he successfully persuaded the authorities of his innocence and they were working towards getting him freed but the people who had arranged for him to be found guilty now persuaded the prison doctor or prison authorities to find him insane and have him sent to an asylum. (I have not found any evidence supporting this claim of him proving his innocence but there is an oddity in the regular reports on prisoner’s health. William is described as healthy until 3 months before he was sent to Bethlem Asylum when it changes to “Indifferent - Religious Melancholy”. However, the admission papers at Bethlem say he had had his condition for eighteen months. This could indicate foul play or it could be that the prison doctors were not very careful in checking the health of prisoners - both explanations are guesses).
This version of events has mostly been from the letters of William and his family. Not surprisingly, from what he says himself, the version presented at the trial was different.
Go to Table of Contents Go to next page ("Rogue Banking - the version from the trials - Initial success")