Maria Louisa Roulson (aka Old Ma Lechmere)

[Edward Stow]

JAL is listed in Northampton in 1851... I think.
I think CAL was born in St George's (not in the East) in London.
This is from memory.
I trust this will not descended into any misogynistic claims about Old Ma?

[Gary Barnett]

JAL is listed in Northampton in 1851... I think.
I think CAL was born in St George's (not in the East) in London.
This is from memory.
I trust this will not descended into any misogynistic claims about Old Ma?

St Anne’s, Soho, Strand registration district?

The misogyny accusation is because some* have apparently cast aspersions on Ma for not ‘keeping her knees together’.

*I’m not aware of anyone having expressed that view.

[Gary Barnett]

Ma’s dilemma.


From the Nottingham Evening Post 10th October, 1900.

[Edward Stow]

Thankfully neither young Thomas Cross nor old Joseph Forsdike were able to impregnate Mrs Lechmere.

My apologies - St Anne's. Born not baptised.

[Gary Barnett]

At the risk of going off on a tangent from a tangent…

George Scudamore Lechmere is a very interesting character. He was John Allen Lechmere’s 1st cousin. Oxford educated and ‘bred up’ for the church (according to his obituary), he became a soldier, married the daughter of a Somerset butcher and ended up as a PC in Hereford.

In 1851 he was living in Hackney and being described as an annuitant; then in 1854 he and his wife appear in the Hackney Union settlement records. He would seem to have joined the Herefordshire constabulary in the mid -1850s and to have remained there until his death in 1863.

As we have seen, in 1851 Maria Lechmere was living in Blue School Lane in Hereford. The next household on the census was that of a police constable. Her husband had been implicated in the death of a police constable in Hereford. The executor of her father’s will, of which she was an ongoing beneficiary, was a local JP who had the power to appoint police officers in Herefordshire. And she would go on to marry a police constable - but not in Hereford, in the East End of London. (I say marry, but of course since John Allen was still alive her marriage to Thomas Cross wasn’t legally valid).

I’ve ordered George Scudamore’s death certificate to see what it what was that carried him off at such a young age.

[Edward Stow]

The family had married into the Scudamores - a very prominent Herefordshire family.
Also the Whitmores - also often used as a middle name and of course the Pattishals of Allensmore Court.

[Gary Barnett]

In an insolvency case in Jersey in 1859 a local ‘Jurat’ had declared that a certain Mrs Blount who had moved from England to Jersey had no property exclusively her own in the Island; inasmuch as that which she possessed in England under a Trusteeship, became her husband’s the moment the two arrived in Jersey.

This caused some backlash and prompted the Jersey Independent and Daily Telegraph, on 25th November, 1859, to make the following statement:

This declaration may be correct as regards the personal property of an English married woman, that property being invested in any business &c., in the Island; but that the property under Trusteeship in England, or any income derived therefrom, can legally be placed in the same category we strongly question. That doctrine, we are persuaded, would not be received by any English Court; nor can we believe it would fare better at the hands of the Privy Council.

Trustee property in England cannot be diverted from its original purpose. If a married woman has an income under a deed of trust, it is hers only.

Let’s remind ourselves of the terms of Thomas Roulson’s will:

I give and bequeath all my moneys in the funds in the Hereford Savings Bank and all other my Property Estate and Effects of what value or description soever unto my trustee hereinafter named in trust to pay the dividends interest and annual produce thereof unto my wife Charlotte for and during the term of her natural life And from and after her decease then in trust to pay out equal third part or share of the dividends interest and produce of the said trust stock funds and securities to such person or persons in such manner as each of my three daughters shall notwithstanding her (7) by any writing or writings from time to time but not in the way of anticipation direct or appoint (9) for want or in default of such appointment then in trust to pay out equal third part or share of the said interest dividends or product unto cash of my said daughters for her own sole and separate use free from the debts contracts control or engagements of her husband And I do hereby donate and direct that the receipt or receipts of cash of my said daughters alone shall be sufficient to discharge for the third part or share of the said dividends interest and annual produce so directed to be paid to her And from and after the decease of each of my said daughters the trust to pay and transfer one equal third part or share of the said trust stocks funds and securities unto and amongst the (17) heirs or children of each of my said daughters so dying in equal shares and proportions if more than one and if but then to such one child only And I do hereby declare and direct that in the event of the death of any or other of my said daughters without leaving any heirs or children her or them receiving the share or shares of my said daughter or daughters so dying shall go and belong to her or their next of kin in such manner in all respects as if she or they had died unmarried And I do hereby request the Reverend Archer Clive of Whitfield aforesaid to act as the trustee of this my will …

It would appear that Maria’s inheritance was in the form of an income derived from investments held in trust by the Rev. Archer Clive; that her legacy was protected from her husband; and that upon her death the income would have transferred to her only surviving child, Charles Allen Lechmere. Whether this will as it stands constitutes a ‘deed of trust’, I’m not sure. If not, perhaps such a deed was additionally drawn up. The wording free from the debts contracts control or engagements of her husband must surely have had some significance.

[Gary Barnett]

The family had married into the Scudamores - a very prominent Herefordshire family.
Also the Whitmores - also often used as a middle name and of course the Pattishals of Allensmore Court.

I thinks it’s hard for people today, especially those who aren’t Brits, to appreciate the social distinctions that would have prevailed in the mid-19thC, particularly in somewhere like Hereford.

Maria hooking up with young Tom Cross would have been seen as a very unwise decision on her part.

[Gary Barnett]

I thinks it’s hard for people today, especially those who aren’t Brits, to appreciate the social distinctions that would have prevailed in the mid-19thC.

Maria hooking up with young Tom Cross would have been seen as a very unwise decision on her part.

And that’s just because of the social gulf between the two of them. Throw in the bigamy aspect and their marriage would have been verging on scandalous. Even if the bigamy (which simply means marrying twice) was ‘innocent/unintentional’.

Think about who was holding Maria’s purse strings: the Reverend Archer Clive a Prebendary of Hereford Cathedral no less. They didn’t come more respectable (or, most likely, more judgemental) than that.

The example below is to highlight the concept of innocent/unintentional bigamy. I have also seen examples where a second marriage entered into after a husband’s absence of 7 years or more was described as ‘bigamous’. Such an act did not constitute a felony, but it was still a bigamous act.

[Gary Barnett]

Just a reminder that we have already had an opinion from someone with a legal background as to whether Maria’s legacy could have been protected from her errant husband:

[R. J. Palmer]

Thankfully neither young Thomas Cross nor old Joseph Forsdike were able to impregnate Mrs Lechmere.

My apologies - St Anne's. Born not baptised.

Yes, thankfully. Depending on the mood of the court, she might have had to serve as much as half an hour in prison.

Can these comments about Maria Lechmere be seen as a vindictive prosecution?

Here is a woman named Hannah Ashton who was found guilty of bigamy in Leeds in 1886.

His Lordship found the case "spiteful and vindictive." Her husband had mistreated her and then deserted her for eight years (sound familiar, Ed?) leaving her to fend for herself, and when he later found she had remarried, prosecuted her. As was not uncommon, she waited seven years before she remarried as she believed this was sufficient.

As one can see below, although she was found guilty, the jury asked for leniency, and his Lordship sentenced the woman to thirty-minutes imprisonment.

I do not think it is a coincidence that Maria Lechmere waited eight years to remarry. I'll leave it up to Ed Stow to decide whether he is similarly "interfering with her happiness" by treating her second and third marriages as untoward, though I suppose Ed might object on religious principles, but I'd be very surprised to hear that that was the case.

Do you see her behavior as morally repellant Ed? Would it not be appropriate to view her 'bigamy' from the light of what common people considered decency in an age when divorce was difficult if not impossible for many women?

By the way, Hannah Ashton didn't have a happy life. Two years later she was back in court, her second husband having also assaulted her.

[Edward Stow]

RJP (as I must call you)

You seem now to have accepted Old Ma's bigamy and are now engaged in mitigation and plea bargaining.

I have merely stated, without any sort of judgement, that she was twice bigamously married . It is up to you or anyone else to draw whatever they wish from that. I will produce a specific film on this subject in due course, illustrating why it is beyond reasonable doubt that she was well aware that JAL still lived where I will no doubt give my opinion on the relevance of it... but I obviously won't discuss this here.

Incidentally there is no evidence that JAL was brutal towards her.

I don't believe I can be accused of inserting my non Ripperological opinions into my posts, so I'm not sure what my personal stance on morality and marriage has to do with this matter... of which I rather doubt you have enough information to form an opinion one way or another.

The case of Old Ma very clearly isn't an innocent or unintended case. As Gary points out the man who controlled her purse strings was a Reverend and her bigamous husband was a policeman. A bad combination.

[Gary Barnett]

Yes, thankfully. Depending on the mood of the court, she might have had to serve as much as half an hour in prison.

Can these comments about Maria Lechmere be seen as a vindictive prosecution?

Here is a woman named Hannah Ashton who was found guilty of bigamy in Leeds in 1886.

His Lordship found the case "spiteful and vindictive." Her husband had mistreated her and then deserted her for eight years (sound familiar, Ed?) leaving her to fend for herself, and when he later found she had remarried, prosecuted her. As was not uncommon, she waited seven years before she remarried as she believed this was sufficient.

As one can see below, although she was found guilty, the jury asked for leniency, and his Lordship sentenced the woman to thirty-minutes imprisonment.

I do not think it is a coincidence that Maria Lechmere waited eight years to remarry. I'll leave it up to Ed Stow to decide whether he is similarly "interfering with her happiness" by treating her second and third marriages as untoward, though I suppose Ed might object on religious principles, but I'd be very surprised to hear that that was the case.

Do you see her behavior as morally repellant Ed? Would it not be appropriate to view her 'bigamy' from the light of what common people considered decency in an age when divorce was difficult if not impossible for many women?

By the way, Hannah Ashton didn't have a happy life. Two years later she was back in court, her second husband having also assaulted her.

Thanks RJ for further confirmation that a woman who remarried after having been deserted for 7+ years could still be considered to have committed bigamy if her husband reappeared. That’s what I have been saying for some time.

[Gary Barnett]

Thanks RJ for further confirmation that a woman who remarried after having been deserted for 7+ years could still considered to have committed bigamy if her husband reappeared. That’s what I have been saying for some time.

I would prefer it if we could keep this thread a research one, rather than conduct endless back and forth wrangling. Thanks in advance for your co-operation.

[Chris Phillips]

I would prefer it if we could keep this thread a research one, rather than conduct endless back and forth wrangling. Thanks in advance for your co-operation.

As I've asked before, if people have any problems with anything other people are posting, please can they contact a moderator rather than trying to be moderators themselves?

Otherwise very soon there may not be any threads at all here, research or otherwise.