Samuel Hardwick: Brushes with the Law

Samuel Hardwick: Brushes with the Law

This is the sad tale of a fatherless lad, born and brought up in Southwark, who took to petty crime and whose punishments did little to improve his character.

In the first half of the 19th century, William and Mary Hardwick lived in the Newington and Bermondsey areas of south London, between the Elephant & Castle and Bricklayers Arms. Initially, they lived in Adam Street, a road just north of, and parallel to, New Kent Street (now known as New Kent Road). Later, they were in Noel Court, Noel Street, which ran northwestwards from Bermondsey New Road, not far from the junction with New Kent Street.

William and Mary were born in the 1790s, probably about 1794, and married in their late teens/early twenties, although no records have been found of them before the birth of their first known child. William was a milkman and died in 1836, aged 43. He was buried at St George the Martyr, Southwark, on 25 May.

Mary was to survive him by more than 50 years and died in 1887. Over the years, she grew older more quickly than was natural! In 1841, her age was give as 44, about four years younger than her husband would have been; in 1851 her age was 57; in 1861, 69; in 1871, 82; and in 1881 her age was given as 96. When she died she was said to be 102! She was probably about 10 years younger.

William and Mary had at least seven children. Elizabeth Jemima Hardwick was the oldest, born on 7 August 1815 and Samuel Hardwick the youngest, born about 1829. Only Elizabeth and Samuel can be traced in adulthood; nothing is known of the others, except Alice, who died, aged 3, and was buried at St George the Martyr on 30 May 1830. Alice’s burial was the first mention of Noel Court as the family residence.

The Hardwick Children

·         Elizabeth Jemima Hardwick was baptised at St Mary, Newington, on 20 August 1815.

·         Frances Mary Hardwick, born 23 December 1817, was baptised at St Mary, Newington, on 11 January 1818.

·         William Hardwick, born 2 April 1820, was baptised at St Mary, Newington, on 21 May.

·         Mary Ann Hardwick, born 28 March 1823, was baptised at St Mary, Newington, on 20 April.

·         Henry Thomas Hardwick, born 23 September 1825, was baptised at St Mary, Newington, on 9 October. Henry’s baptism was the last mention of Adam Street as the family home.

·         Alice Hardwick, born c 1827, was buried at St George the Martyr on 30 May 1830.

·         Samuel Hardwick, born c 1829.

Elizabeth married Francis Duncalf Purdy on 9 November 1835 at St John the Evangelist, Lambeth. Francis was variously described as a costermonger, greengrocer, general dealer and labourer. They had ten children and were at various addresses in Newington and Bermondsey when the children were baptised.

The Purdy Children

·         Mary Purdy, born 9 July 1836 and baptised at St Mary, Newington, on 3 August when the family home was in Lion Street and her father was described as a labourer, as he was when she married in 1858.

·         George Purdy, born 10 November 1838 and baptised at St Mary, Newington, on 5 December when the family home was in New Street and his father was described as a labourer. When George married in 1860 both he and his father were described as hawkers

·         Elizabeth Purdy, born 16 April 1841 and baptised at St Mary, Newington, on 9 May when the family home was again in Lion Street and her father was described as a labourer

·         Jacob Purdy, born in the summer of 1844, was baptised, aged 3, at St Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey, on 5 December 1847 – the same day as his sister Susannah – when the family home was at 17 Noel Court and father was described as a greengrocer

·         Susannah Purdy, born 10 November 1838, was baptised as an infant at St Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey, on 5 December 1847 – the same day as her brother Jacob. When she married at the end of 1871, her father was described as a greengrocer

·         Ann [or Nancy] Purdy, was born 22 June 1849 and baptised as Nancy at St Mary, Newington, on 13 July when the family home was in Lion Street and father was described as a general dealer. She was baptised as Ann on 2 August 1857, when her date of birth was given as 9 July 1849. The family was then at 8 Potiers Place, and her father was a labourer

·         Samuel Purdy was born in the autumn of 1853: no record has been found of a baptism. When he married in 1880, he was described as a greengrocer but his father was noted only as deceased.

·         Martha Purdy was born in the spring of 1856: no record has been found of a baptism. When she was married in 1880, her father was described as a greengrocer

·         Francis (Frank) Purdy was born in the spring of 1859: no record has been found of a baptism. When he married in 1887, his father was described as a greengrocer.

·         Sophia Purdy was born at the end of 1861: no record has been found of a baptism. When she married in 1883, and again in 1886, her father was described as a greengrocer on both occasions.

The census records for the family show that in 1841 and 1851, the Purdy family lived at 17 Noel Court, but from 1861 onwards, they were at various different houses in Rephidim Street, a continuation of Noel Court to the northwest.

Samuel Hardwick

Samuel Hardwick was the youngest child of William and Mary Hardwick, born c 1829. No baptismal record for Samuel has so far been found, but it is likely that he never lived in the Adam Street home, but at Noel Court: that was the address given on 30 May 1830 when his sister Alice was buried, aged three, at St George the Martyr, and again on 25 May 1836 when his father William was buried, again at St George the Martyr.

Noel Court remained the family home for many years later. In 1841 Samuel lived with his mother (a florist) in this house which was also then the home of his sister Elizabeth and her husband Francis Purdy, the costermonger.

When he married Jane Saunderson on 14 December 1847 at St Mary, Newington, Samuel described himself as a greengrocer of Lion Street – the street where his sister and family lived at various times. Samuel, Jane and his mother Mary all made their marks. He was said to be of full age and Jane was a minor.

Jane Saunderson’s father, Robert, was a sawyer, but nothing more is known about the family.

The Cheese Theft

Samuel had been twice summarily convicted of picking pockets before he and Jane were charged with shoplifting on 29 January 1848 – just over a month after their marriage – at Woolwich magistrates’ court. No details of Samuel’s previous convictions are known but there is a note that he had twice spent three months in a house of correction.

The court case was reported in The Kentish Independent of 29 January 1848 and, typical of local newspapers of the time, the report contained many errors. After being careful checked against other sources the following is a “corrected” version, with changes in square brackets:

“SATURDAY: Samuel Hardwick was placed at the bar, charged with stealing 3½ lbs of cheese from the shop of Mrs Martha Wright, grocer, &c, New Road, and Jane Saunderson with receiving the same, well knowing it to have been stolen.

“Martha Wright deposed that this morning (Saturday) the prisoner Hardwick came to her shop to sell some onions. The prisoner asked witness to have a bunch for one shilling. Witness told the prisoner she wanted none. The prisoner Saunderson was then at the door. The prisoner Hardwick came back to the shop shortly after, and asked eightpence for the bunch of onions, which the witness bought. He had scarcely left the shop when a boy named [Inch] entered and told her that the prisoner had taken a piece of cheese with him. Witness missed the cheese now produced by constable [William Bathe] 257R. Witness followed the prisoner and saw the cheese in the possession of Saunderson. Constable 257 R took the prisoner Saunderson into custody, but Hardwick made his escape. The prisoner told witness to take the cheese, and say nothing about it, and said she would beg witness’s pardon.

“William [Inch], aged 14 years, deposed that he saw the prisoner leave Mrs Wright’s shop with the cheese under his arm. Witness informed Mrs Wright, and followed the prisoner to Green’s End, and saw him give the cheese to the prisoner Saunderson. Witness went to constable [Bathe], who took the female into custody. The prisoner Hardwick made his escape.

“Police-constable [Bathe] 257R, deposed to finding the [cheese in the] possession of the prisoner Saunderson.

“Police-constable [William] Gladwin, 122R, deposed to apprehending the prisoner Hardwick.

“Hardwick, in his defence, denied all knowledge of the cheese.

“Saunderson, in her defence, said that the cheese was placed on the barrow, but that she was ignorant who place it there.

“Mr Levy* stated that when the prisoner Saunderson was brought to the station-house that she admitted to him that the cheese was given to her by the prisoner Hardwick. – Remanded till Monday.

“MONDAY: Samuel Hardwick and Jane Saunderson were brought up on remand from Saturday, Hardwick charged with stealing 3½ lbs of cheese from Mrs Wright, of New-road, and Saunderson with receiving the same, knowing it to have been stolen.

“Police-constable Gladwin, 122R, deposed that he had been to Bermondsey, where the prisoners resided, and that he there ascertained that the female was the wife of the prisoner Samuel Hardwick. The female was not known to the police, but the male prisoner had been charged four times with picking pockets, and twice summarily convicted.

“The prisoners admitted that they were married.

“Mr Traill† discharged the female with a caution, and committed Samuel Hardwick for trial.”

Proceedings of the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, 31 January 1848:

SAMUEL HARDWICK, aged 19, charged with stealing 3½ lbs weight of cheese, value 2s 6d; the goods of Martha Wright.

MARTHA WRIGHT: I keep a shop in Woolwich. On 22 January, I had a piece of cheese weighing 3lbs 6ozs. The prisoner came into the shop, between ten and eleven o’clock in the morning. About a minute after he was gone, a boy told me something, and I missed the cheese. I went after the prisoner, and saw him put the cheese on a woman’s barrow of onions in the street. I am sure he is the man. The policeman took it — it is mine.

Cross-examined by MR. PAYNE. Q. What became of the man? A. He ran away. He had come twice into my shop. I had just turned to go into the parlour.

WILLIAM INCH: I saw the prisoner going out of the shop with the cheese under his jacket. He ran away. I saw him put it on the barrow.

Cross-examined. Q. Had you ever seen him before? A. No. I saw him again the same day. I am sure he is the man.

WILLIAM BATHE (policeman, R 257): I found this cheese on the barrow which the prisoner’s wife had in Powis-street.

Cross-examined. Q. How do you know it was the prisoner’s wife? A. The prisoner’s mother told me so, and my brother officer said so.

Found guilty and confined for four months.

Back to pocketpicking

Almost a year after the attempt to steal the cheese, Samuel was back in court.

Proceedings of the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, 1 January 1849:

SAMUEL HARDWICK, aged 19, was charged with stealing 1 handkerchief, value 1s, the goods of John Furman‡, from his person, to which he pleaded guilty. Sentenced to be transported for ten years.

It was nearly three years before Samuel was actually transported. He was originally held in Newgate Prison and then on 8 February an order was given for him to be transferred to Millbank Penitentiary where he arrived on 12 February. He stayed there for five and a half months and during his time at Millbank, two appeals were made by Jane – on 26 February and 13 April – while she was living with her sister-in-law Elizabeth Purdy at 17 Noel Court. Both appeals were refused. On 1 August, the government at Millbank received an order to transfer Samuel to Pentonville Prison where he arrived the next day.

On 31 March 1852, he was transferred to Portsmouth Prison and then he sailed aboard Dudbrook on 17 November 1852 for Freemantle, Western Australia, where he arrived on 7 February 1853. When he arrived he was described as 5ft 7in, dark hair, hazel eyes, fair complexion, pitted by small pox with “JS” tattoo on left arm and scars on his breast and left arm.

In Court in Perth

Even after he arrived in Australia, Samuel Hardwick frequently appeared in court and got the reputation of being “one of the most turbulent and disorderly characters in Perth”. However, not always was he convicted of any offence. Indeed, at his first court appearance – on 4 August 1854 when he was accused of stealing a pair of boots belonging to a Mr. Okely – he was discharged.

However, once he became an “expiree”, ie having served his term, he was frequently before the magistrate for drunkenness or assault – or both.

On 28 October 1859, it was reported that he and three other men were “each fined for having been drunk and incapable of taking care of themselves”.

He was then charged by Elizabeth Smith that he had assaulted her on 23 December 1859, but as she did not appear in court, he was discharged.

A month later, he was charged by PC Quinliven “with having made use of most obscene language in Hay Street, and also with having threatened ‘to blow Miss Barry’s brains out’.” As the newspaper reported on 20 January, 1860: “This gallant young gentleman was fined in the sum of £1, but as the fine was beyond his means His Worship accommodated him with 14 days board and lodging in the Lock-up.” His dealings with Margaret Barry appear to have been something of a love-hate relationship, as was revealed later in the year.

In April 1860, Samuel Hardwick and John Marr were charged by Charles Woolley with having forcibly entered his house, and stealing from his person with violence, the sum of 6s.

The newspaper report of the case said: “After the evidence had been gone into, it was found that the charge of robbery could not be sustained … his Worship informed the prisoners that they would be charged with the assault only. From the evidence, it was apparent that the prisoners felt some antipathy to Woolley, who, some time since, gave evidence against one of their compeers which resulted in his conviction, and being somewhat flushed with drink, they imagined it was a favourable opportunity to vent their spleen upon him, and accordingly determined to call at his house, and give him a sound drubbing. The prisoners in defence however stated that Woolley had challenged them to fight, and they of course, politely called at his house to try their pugilistic skill.”

Woolley had turns Queen’s evidence in a case the month before in which he and four others had been charged with relieving a rather drunk chap of several pounds in the tap room of the Freemasons’ Hotel. The police dropped the charges against Woolley and two others and concentrated the evidence against just two men – John Waller and Charles Rowe. As a result, Waller got six months with hard labour, and Rowe, tree months.

For the assault on Woolley, Hardwick was fined with costs £2 7s, and in default of payment two months’ imprisonment; and Marr, £1 7s or 1 month’s imprisonment.”

Samuel Hardwick rarely had much luck when it came to court cases: even when he brought a charge of assault against a policeman, it was Samuel who was punished.

Samuel claimed that PC Scriviner had assaulted him in Haysom’s public house on 26 July 1860. He said he was standing at the bar talking to the bar maid, when the constable came in, and, without any provocation on his part, struck him a blow on the head with his staff. In support of his evidence; he called a man named Crawley, who stated that he was in Haysom’s on the night of Thursday, and saw the policeman come up and strike Hardwick on the head with his staff. In cross examination Crawley acknowledged that there was a "row going on" in the house at the time PC Scriviner came in and that he saw a man lying on the floor, but he could not say whether he was knocked down or whether he fell down. PC Scriviner called witnesses to shew that Hardwick had obstructed him in the execution of his duty, and received a blow on the head in consequence. The magistrate dismissed the charge against the policeman, and fined Samuel the sum of 10s.

A month or so later, Samuel was charged with being drunk and creating a disturbance in Murray Street. Hardwick, “who is known to the Police as one of the most turbulent and disorderly characters in Perth”, was sentenced to 21 days’ imprisonment.

On 26 October, he appeared in court yet again – this was, reputedly, his tenth offence – along with several other “incorrigible drunkards”. The other men charged that day were either imprisoned or given substantial fines but as Samuel “begged very hard for mercy, he escaped with a fine of 5s”.

A month later, he was up before the magistrate yet again when he and another former convict, Charles Seymour, were charged with fighting in Haysom’s yard; Samuel was also charged with having on two occasions broken his arrest from the police. “Being a notoriously bad character”, Samuel was fined 20s, and was also ordered to procure two persons willing to become sureties for his future good behaviour. Seymour “being a generally well conducted man” was discharged.

At the same time, Margaret Barry – the lady who brains he had threatened to blow out nine months  earlier– was charged with having aided Samuel in making his escape from the police. The newspaper report of the time said: “As the assistance rendered to this gentleman by Miss Barry was of a more ludicrous than vicious character, his Worship discharged her.”

In fact, Miss Barry had appeared before the magistrates on other occasions – once for aiding and abetting the commission of a robbery, another time for using obscene and abusive language, and a third time for being drunk and incapable. When she was charged with aiding and abetting. the magistrate “pointed out to her the sad consequences of the debauched and profligate life she had hitherto led, and expressed his deep regret at seeing a young woman like her, who was blessed with good health and well educated, allow herself to sink into such a state of degradation and crime, when she might by honesty and industry, become an honoured and useful member of society”. That didn’t stop him sending her down for six months nor Margaret’s later brushes with the law!

Samuel seems to have kept out of trouble for a while and it was not until 19 September 1861 that he was charged with “removing a flat from its moorings, near the Perth causeway, the property of Mr G. Randall, without the knowledge or consent of the owner”. He was fined 5s, with 4s 6d costs.

His troubles started again a year later. During 1862 he was imprisoned on three occasions for short periods: on 2 August he got 10 days for being “a loose, idle, disorderly person”; on 2 September, he was described as “a rogue and vagabond” and got 21 days’ imprisonment for being drunk and fighting in Hay Street; the last record of him being 27 November 1862 when he was imprisoned for three months with hard labour for fighting in Mr Strickland’s yard, King William Street.

  

Back to England

At some time in the next three years, he returned to England and his old stomping ground in Bermondsey. On 5 June 1865 he married Rebecca Ambrose at St George the Martyr. He claimed he was a bachelor and he and Rebecca both gave their address as 52 Kent Street.

The Kent Street Riot

At the end of June 1868, there were reports in the local press of a riot in Kent Street – and the Hardwicks were heavily involved.

As usual, the newspaper reports show a number of inconsistencies but basically there had been some sort of disagreement between two neighbours which was taken to court. After the magistrate dismissed the case, the supporters of one side celebrated a little too freely and took to the streets. When the police tried to step in, there was a fracas. Seven people (including Samuel and Rebecca Hardwick) were arrested and charged with assaulting a number of constables; six were sent for trial at Guildford; and two were found guilty.

Unfortunately, it has not been possible to find anything more about the other people named in the reports, particularly the two squabbling neighbours who were at the root of the trouble. One report states Mrs Kellerby charged Mr Roach, the other says the respondent was Mrs Roach. A third report does not give the names, but does add a little spice to the story.

The South London Chronicle of 27 June 1868 stated:

“On Monday afternoon Mrs Kellerby, the wife of a butcher, summoned Mr Roach, a general dealer and neighbour, in Kent-street, for abusive and threatening language. The court and the approaches thereto were densely crowded with the roughs of Kent-street, and it required the attention of all the officers of the court to keep them in anything like order. After a lengthy hearing the magistrate dismissed the summons, whereupon the adherents of Mr Roach raised loud shouts and yells inside and outside the court. When the respective parties left the court they were followed by a mob of the worst characters in Kent-street, and during the evening they got so excited with drink, that between 900 and 1,000 took possession of Kent-street, attacking every one they met, and when the police were called to quell the riot, they were violently attacked, and some severely injured. One constable, who took a man, James Leonard (a brother of Mrs Roach), into custody, had one of his fingers nearly bitten off, and was struck about the head by the ruffian. Another constable was knocked down while going to rescue his brother constable; he, however, managed to lay hold and keep hold of his assailant, who was taken into custody.

“Several principals in the affray were taken up, viz., James Leonard, Samuel Hardwick, Rebecca Hardwick, John Leary, James Carpenter, Thomas Leonard, and John Murray, and were charged before Mr Partridge at the Southwark Police-court on Wednesday, when they made a rambling defence, and denied having taken a very active part in the disturbance.

“Mr Partridge† observed that he had seldom heard of such an unruly mob causing great consternation amongst the peaceable inhabitants of the locality, and he was surprised that none went to the assistance of the police. The prisoners had not only created a riot, but violently assaulted the police in the performance of their duty. It was too serious a charge for him to deal with, therefore he committed them all for trial.”

Lloyd’s Weekly London Newspaper of 28 June 1868:

“RIOT IN THE BOROUGH – On Wednesday, James Leonard, Samuel Hardwick, Rebecca Hardwick, John Leary, James Carpenter, Thomas Leonard, and John Murray were charged at Southwark police-court with rioting in Kent-street, and assaulting William Wiggins, 56M, Ambrose Head, 211M, James Bennett 96M, Charles Witt 54 M R, James Welsh 249M, and James Clayton 193M, while in the execution of their duty.”

This report then repeats word for word the opening sentences of story as it appeared in The South London Chronicle, apart from changing the respondent from Mr Roach to Mrs Roach. It includes the figure of 900 to 1,000 rioters but without giving the details of the injuries to the police.

It concludes: “Evidence having been given that all the prisoners had taken part in the riot, and committed violent assaults on the police, Mr Partridge committed all of them for trial.”

The third report appears to have been syndicated to various provincial newspapers, exactly the same story appearing in Cardiff, Chester, Newcastle and Whitby on 27 June. This report seems full of whimsy and delicious innuendo:

“Riotous Proceedings in the Borough – A riot, during which many heads were broken, took place on Monday evening in the delightful locality known as Kent street, Borough. It originated in some of the inhabitants giving rather forceful expression to their virtuous indignation at what they consider too close an intimacy between a beershop keeper and a woman who is not supposed to be his wife. Their gallantry, it seems, took the playful form of throwing buckets of water and pieces of coal at the offending frail one, and on the police interfering in her behalf, a general row ensued, in the course of which many windows were broken, pockets were picked, policemen’s helmets were damaged, and all sorts of people seem to have been roughly handled, the neighbourhood being in a state of dreadful uproar. Several persons were taken into custody.”

On 4 July 1868, all but Carpenter appeared at the County Court at Guildford charged with “unlawfully assaulting William Wiggins, and others, Constables of the Metropolitan Police Force, in the execution of their duty, at St George-the-Martyr, Southwark”.

James Leonard (18), labourer, and Samuel Hardwick (40), also a labourer, were both found guilty and sentenced to six calendar months hard labour at Wandsworth Prison.

Two labourers – John Leary (16) and Thomas Leonard (24), who had “previous” – and John Murray (23), a bricklayer, were found not guilty, as was Rebecca Hardwick (38).

And that was the last record of Samuel and Rebecca Hardwick. Where they went, when they died…nothing.

As for Mrs Kellerby and the Roach family, they weren’t in Kent Street – or the surrounding district – in 1871 and it has not been possible to trace them or any of the “roughs” who were arrested.

Notes

* Edward Levy, Inspector of Police, R Division, Woolwich

† James Traill and William Partridge, Magistrates

‡ There is a discrepancy and the name John Turman appears elsewhere in the records