Got an interesting family? Done a write-up of them? Email me via the "Contact me" page from the Home drop-down menu and you could have their history published here.

James Stilwell of Witley, Surrey. Married twice, but never married. A sad tale from the early 1800s

Experienced researches will know that you can search for months, maybe years, for some key information, only for some evidence to pop-up unexpectedly when you are least looking for it. This was very much the case in the following sad yet interesting tale of the application of the poor law in Surrey.

The Times of the 18th April 1834 has a very interesting article.

This concerns a court case brought by the parish of Waldron in East Sussex against the parish of Witley in Surrey. Waldron were trying to prevent an Ann Foreman from being, once again, removed to their parish from Witley in Surrey. Note the "once again", as Waldron parish had received the pauper Ann a number of times before. It would appear that they were no longer prepared to put up with these removals and brought a court case against Witley to stop her being sent back to them.

So what is the background to this story? Why did Ann Foreman keep travelling back from Waldron to Witley, only to be sent back to Waldron by Witley parish?

The court case gives a clear history of events leading up to 1834, but the story behind that reported in The Times is more interesting, particularly with regards to events after 1834.

Ann Foreman was born in Waldron on 27th Nov 1794 and is likely to have been illegitimate as only the mother's name, Elizabeth, is known. Waldron is 2 miles south of Heathfield in East Sussex. She married, on 11th Feb 1812 at Willindon near Eastbourne in Sussex, a James Stilwell of Witley, Surrey. Quite what James Stilwell was doing down in East Sussex is a mystery. James was born in Witley in 1788, and Willingdon is 44 miles from Witley as the crow flies. By road it is much longer and even today drivers would find getting between the two fairly challenging. Waldron is 10 miles north of Eastbourne, so Ann's presence there is more understandable. Whatever the reason James was there, he married Ann, and their first child, Richard, was born there in October 1813. From existing family research it is known that James and Ann had settled in James' home village of Witley after James had been sent back to Witley from Sussex in 1816 - it is assumed that he was removed either from Willingdon or Waldron under the poor law, and Ann followed with the young Richard. It is known that the couple subsequently had 3 children, all baptised in Witley. These were Jane (1819), John (1825) and Thomas (1828).

There have always been two pieces of evidence that have confused the descendants of this marriage:

1. James and Ann married again, at Stoke next Guildford in 1828, despite being already married and living in Witley
2. James had previously married a Sarah Callingham in 1808 in Witley. It was assumed Sarah had died, but there is no burial record.

The court case reveals that the truth is much more complex.

Returning to the report of the court case, it is stated that Ann Foreman, "otherwise Stilwell", and a pauper was co-habiting in 1817 with a man named James Stilwell. But surely the parish records show that they were married in 1812 in Willingdon? So why does the court say she was co-habiting? Ann was a pauper, pregnant and, according to them, co-habiting, so Witley Parish removed her to Waldron in Sussex under the rules of the poor law of the time. Witley must have suspected that something was not right with the marriage to James. The child Ann was carrying died, and she returned to her "husband" in Witley. She resided with him until 1820 when once again she was removed to Waldron as being pregnant and a pauper. She returned to Witley after a month where the daughter Jane was baptised. That's a trip of 44miles, by rough roads, with a one-month old baby. It is possible that James went with her to Waldron and back, but as a poor labourer the need to earn a living was paramount so he probably stayed in Witley. It is not known whether the 6 year old Richard stayed in Witley or went with the mother. This baptism of Jane in Witley shows a conflicting attitude between the parish and the church. If the church did not believe James and Ann were married, why did Witley agree to baptise Jane and thus risk making her well-being the responsibility of the parish? I suspect local pressure was applied as the Stilwells were a well-established family in the parish, and were known to be hard-working and regulars at the church.

In 1828 she again became pregnant and once more was removed to Waldron under the poor law. As with the previous removal, she returned to Witley within the month and Thomas was baptised in Witley. However, genealogical research shows that, in between times, another child had been born and baptised in Witley - a John Stilwell in 1825. The parish seems to have missed that child although it is hard to see how they could fail to spot her pregnancy and baptism in such a close-knit parish.

James Stilwell died in 1833 and Ann found herself a "widow" with Jane (14), John (8) and Thomas (5) - eldest child Richard was 20 by this time. Witley raised a removal order to send her and two of the three children back to Waldron (at 14, Jane was either in an occupation, or possibly had died). It was at this point that Waldron parish's patience ran out and they brought the court case to prevent the removal. The whole court case for the defence (Witley parish) revolved around the validity of the marriage of James and Ann, as they clearly thought they were not married in the eyes of the law and therefore Ann was legally a single woman from Waldron with illegitimate children.

Ann Foreman stated in court that she married James Stilwell twice, but no explanation was given as to why. The defence (Witley parish) then pulled their trump card. They had a marriage record for James Stilwell and a Sarah Callingham in 1808. Sarah's brother was produced as a witness and stated that Sarah did marry James at Witley (he was present at the marriage) and that they then lived together with Sarah's mother at Godalming. However, he also stated that Sarah left to be a domestic servant in London after just 6 weeks of marriage. It would seem that the marriage was not a successful one. So the evidence points to James Stilwell subsequently marrying Ann Foreman bigamously as there is no record of Sarah Callingham dying. This would explain Witley parish's belief that Ann was not legally married to James Stilwell. I believe that James assumed that his first wife had subsequently died as he had not heard from her for a many years, and married Ann a second time in 1828 at Stoke next Guildford to make their union legal. It would be interesting to know how they managed to persuade Stoke's church officials to marry them when they lived 15 miles away at Witley.

The prosecution's court case finally collapsed when Sarah Callingham's brother, John, stated that his sister had gone to America where she had married (bigamously) and that he had received a letter from her the previous year (1832). This meant that James and Ann's marriages were invalid as James was still legally married to Sarah at the time of both marriages. The prosecution had no evidence to refute this and did not press the case. Ann Foreman was sent back, once again, to Waldron with the two youngest children.

This is not the end of the story though as there is a twist in the tail. Research of the 1851 census finds Ann "married" to an Edward Peto, framework knitter of Godalming (near Witley). So Ann had travelled back to the Witley area at some time between 1833 and 1851. With Ann and Edward Peto is her youngest son, Thomas Stilwell, who is recorded as an "imbecile" on the census. No evidence of a marriage can be found, so did Ann once again co-habit? There are no known children from this "marriage" (Ann would have been 63 by 1851). By the 1861 census there is no sign of Ann, and Edward is a widower, with Thomas Stilwell living with him. To his eternal credit, Edward appears to have looked after his "imbecile" step-son as they also appear together on the 1871 census, but Edward had died by the time of 1881 census - Thomas was a lodger in Godalming and recorded as an "idiot".

The above story shows the faceless side of the poor law. The parish did not want the responsibility of looking after Ann, despite the fact that she was living with, and presumably supported by, James Stilwell. How she travelled the 40-odd miles across country between Witley and Waldron is not known, but she made her way back every time, twice with a young baby. She must have been a strong and determined woman.

What of the four surviving children? Thomas, the youngest (the "imbecile"), died without known issue. The next youngest, John, married an Amy of Ditchlings, Sussex and, at the time of the 1861 census, was living in Brighton as a general labourer with two daughters. No trace of this family can be found on subsequent census returns. Nor can any trace be found of second child, Jane, on the census returns. She either married or died. The oldest child, Richard, who was born in Willingdon, went on to found a successful branch of the Stilwells, and his descendants today live across southern England and in New Zealand.