Who do You Think You Are - on the wrong side of the street By L.J. Trafford

Last Christmas I brought my Mum one of those ancestry DNA kits with the hope that it would reveal hitherto unknown mysteries about her/my lineage and thus provide me with a ready-made topic for a History Girls post.
Two months later when the results pinged into her inbox it is fair to say my Mum was a tad disappointed with her report.


Her DNA report revealed that her ancestors came from Cambridgeshire, a county in the East Anglian region of England. Cambridgeshire, East Anglia is also where my Mum currently resides and has done her whole life. Perhaps this adherence to staying put is an inherited trait because according to her DNA report her family had spent the last 350 years in Cambridgeshire, East Anglia. Britain once had an empire that covered an area of 13.7 million square miles and the UK itself is 94,000 square miles, my Mum’s ancestors hadn’t dangled so much as an ankle outside of Cambridgeshire since Charles II was King.


But never mind, I can work with the material given.

Kettle’s Yard

In squeezing a History Girls article out of my Cambridgeshire DNA I decided to take a closer look at the background of my maternal Nanna, I knew that she had grown up in a rough area of Cambridge and I figured that gave me an increased chance of pulling a sexy story out of the bag. Perhaps.


My Nanna was born in 1911 in Kettle’s Yard, Cambridge. Her family, the Lowes had moved into number 2 Kettle’s Yard sometime between the census of 1871 and the census of 1881. In 1881 John Lowe, my great-great grandfather is listed as working a coal porter, my great-great grandmother Emma Lowe is apparently working as a washerwoman whilst somehow looking after her six children; Kate 13, Alice 9, Amelia 7, Emily 5, Ernest 2 and my great-grandmother Harriet Lowe, who was only 2 months old.

When the Lowes lived in Kettle’s Yard it ‘was dank place where twenty-six tiny cottages squeezed into a place suitable for none’.1’

Kettle’s Yard did not have the greatest of reputations, as my Nanna had told me herself when she was alive. She didn’t tell her school friends where she lived, she didn’t want them to know she came from Kettle’s Yard.

But how rough was Kettle’s Yard really during the years that the Lowe family lived there? Armed with an online subscription to the archives of the Cambridge Evening and The Cambridge Weekly newspapers I set off to find out.

Foul of mouth

Typing Kettle’s Yard into the search bar of the local newspaper archives retrieved a number of stories about obscene language. In November 1855 James Rutter was sentenced to seven days in prison for using ‘obscene and profane language’ in Kettle’s Yard. The newspaper report makes mention that it was a Sunday, this may or may not be relevant to the rather harsh punishment dished out to Rutter


In 1899, Frederick Clarke, a labourer and resident of Kettle’s Yard who pleaded not guilty to using obscene language fared better than James Rutter had 45 years before. Clarke was only fined half a crown after being found guilty, perhaps people's sensibilities had changed toward foul language. Or perhaps, not because there are enough newspaper reports of people up before the Magistrate for using obscene language. Between the years 1890-99 there are 677 newspaper reports that mention the phrase ‘obscene language’ versus only 150 between 1850-59.


In 1893 Mr EH Douty a reputable surgeon was strolling down Kings Parade in Cambridge at half past eleven at night when he passed two men using ‘bad language in a very loud voice”. Douty listened for a further two minutes to this awful language before whistling for a constable. As the two men were lead away they‘used language worse than ever.’ I bet they did, straight at Mr EH Douty the reputable surgeon and sneak. Douty was praised by the bench for his actions. One of the men, Walter Pilsworth of Kettle’s Yard pleaded guilty and was fined.


Then there is this glorious story. Annie Woodrough a resident of Kettle’s Yard in 1889 is facing charges after she bumped into an acquaintance at ‘about a quarter past seven near the old post office. Defendant made use of a very abusive expression and offered to fight her on the Piece for 10s. Witness was also insulted by her about ten o’clock” Whilst some have got away with mere fines for using obscene language, Annie gets 14 days imprisonment. Chiefly because she is a repeat offender, it is revealed that this is the 3rd time Annie has been up before the magistrate for using obscene language and the 7th time in total she has been before the magistrate that year. Which is all the more impressive when you note the date of the article, 11th February 1889. In less than two months Annie has managed to get herself arrested, charged and brought before a magistrate 7 times. That’s more than once a week


This reads as extremely tough justice for what are essentially only words but there is a sense of fairness in the system in that both the defendant and the claimant are allowed to bring forward witnesses to back up their version of events. In the case of Annie Woodrough her witness caves in under pressure and the sheer number of other people who had all seen Annie effing and blinding her way through the streets of Cambridge’ Woodrough denied the charge saying that she had not been out of her house until some time after the time when she was accused of having misconducted herself, and she called a witness, Annie Hammond, to prove that she had been in her house until after that time. Annie Hammond however when on her oath said that she had seen defendant in St Andrew’s Street at about seven o’clock.’


Two ladies from Kettle’s Yard, Ellen Blackwell and Hannah Haylock had their cases dismissed for using obscene language due to ‘the evidence being of a contradictory character.’


My great-great grandmother Emma Lowe, even appears as a witness in one such case in 1902. She is acting as a witness for the defendant, Mary Ann Wolfe who has been accused by Eliza Hall of having come to her house ‘about one o clock on the day in question. [] Witness had shut the door and the defendant tried to open it. She commenced swearing at witness and it was kept up until 10 o clock at night’

You have to admire Mary Ann Wolfes fortitude for keeping up the torrent of obscene language for nine whole hours. This was the sort of behaviour that attracts attention and Eliza Hall had no difficulty finding witnesses to back up her story.

Enter my great-great grandmother Emma. ‘Emma Lowe, wife of John Lowe [] gave evidence for the defendant. The complainant, she said, abused the defendant, who did no use bad language.’ Which is not much of a defence because it confirms Eliza Hall’s story that there was an altercation between the two, there are very few altercations that don’t involve some bad language. Otherwise, it’s not an altercation, it’s two people having a chat.

Mary Anne Wolfe then piped up that Eliza Hall had only brought the case through spite because she, Mary would not deal with her. The response to this new claim in the case was this. ‘The Chairman said the defendant had been before the court something like 10 times. She appeared to be a very violent woman having no control over herself. She would be bound over in two sums of £5 each to keep the peace for 6 months.’

‘This is cruel treatment,’ said Mary.

It’s not terribly cruel treatment, being bound over meant that Mary merely had to stick to some conditions, presumably not swearing at people for 9 hours, else she be charged £10. £10 was a lot of money in 1902, it was not far short of the annual wage of a scully maid or hall boy, admittedly the lowest rung of domestic servant.


Let’s take a moment to contemplate that my great-great grandmother is hanging around with someone described by an official as ‘a very violent woman’ and a habitual criminal.

Drunk as a Insert animal of choice.

What I didn’t mention about Mary Anne Wolfe’s case was the location of Eliza Hall’s house, the house that she tried to shut Mary out of and which Mary subsequently stood outside and yelled obscenities for 9 whole hours. Eliza Hall was the wife of James Hall, publican of the Beehive Pub. The story makes a whole lot more sense once you realise alcohol was involved.

Alcohol was also a factor in the case of Annie Woodrough. ‘Supt. Turrall complained to the magistrate of the Rose and Tulip public-house. It had been a great nuisance for a long time[] People round the neighbourhood complained of obscene language being used about there and girls of bad character resorted to it to get out the way of proctors.’

Alcohol is a factor in many of the newspaper reports connected to Kettle’s Yard.
In 1891 Thomas Brown admitted he had ‘had a drop of beer and it had made him as giddy as a goose.’ Thomas’ giddiness manifested itself as gazing about in a vacant manner and making peculiar signs with his hands. He’d also assaulted a small boy and was charged by PC Gates with being of unsound mind and wandering at large, as well as being drunk and disorderly.


In 1892 Groom, Daniel Davey was blaming drink for his actions on one December night ‘the prisoner in his defence said he was very sorry for what he had done. He had had too much to drink and did not know what he was doing.’ What he was doing was assaulting Jane Riley who had fled from Kettle’s Yard pursued by Davey who ‘struck the woman in the face, pulled her hair and threatened to kill her.’ Thankfully some passerby's intervened, and Davey was taken away. His stated remorse held no sway given that he’d been arrested for disorderly conduct many times previously. Davey was sentenced to two months hard labour.

Drink was surely behind this incident too, the ‘defendant came to him and snatched half a roll and some butter from him, and then picked up an old herring and threw it at his hat.’


It’s not surprising that there are so many reports of drunkenness around the Kettle’s Yard area for in the streets that surrounded Kettles Yard; Castle Street, Northampton Street, Bridge Street, Pound Hill and St Peter’s Street the 1911 census records there were 40 public houses. In the city of Cambridge in total there were 384 pubs for a population of 40,000 which is a pub for every 102 people and that’s before we factor out the under 10’s of that total population.

To put this in context in 2021 there were 84 pubs for a total population of around 145,000. Which is a pub for every 1726 members of the public, and a much longer queue for last order.

Kettle’s Yard – Asbo central?

It is clear from my brief study of local newspapers that Kettle’s Yard and people who lived in Kettle’s Yard were involved in a fair amount of what we would call anti-social behaviour. Altercations fuelled by easy access to alcohol from the trillion pubs of Cambridge which led to some pretty fruity language.

However, what I didn’t find was much in the way of what we might call serious crimes being committed. Horace Gidney aged 9 of Kettle’s Yard was one of a gang of boys accused of stealing pears, grapes and plums from the garden of Henry John Gray. Richard Todd of Kettle’s Yard was charged with keeping two dogs without a license but didn’t turn up for court to face the charges and thus earned himself an extra charge. Charles Hammond aged 14 of Kettle’s Yard was caught red handed stealing 21lbs of lead piping from a house, however nobody could ascertain who owned the house and thus the lead piping. Therefore, Charles Hammond and his gang were released from remand, although reminded by a court official ‘that they would be liable to be brought up and charged again if the difficulty was cleared up.’

There was one serious crime I could find, it was committed by 17 year old George John Wolfe of Kettle’s Yard, a sexual assault on a 9 year old girl. Wolfe firmly denied the charges claiming that the girl had made a mistake and called on two witness who attested he was elsewhere at the time. When Wolfe was put before a Grand Jury they threw out the bill.

Finally, I stumbled across one further crime committed by a resident of Kettle’s Yard. In 1883 ‘John Lowe, Kettle’s Yard [was] also summoned for disobeying orders to send their children to school.’


Yep, that’s my great grandfather.





Notes


1 The Spinning House’ p125 Caroline Biggs.

The 'Auld Alliance' by Margaret Skea

Some years ago the BBC ran an advert for the 6 Nations Rugby tournament which was pulled following some complaints, and then proceeded to go viral! The punchline was - 

 

‘It’s not who you want to win, but who you want to lose.’

 

No prizes for guessing the answers the Scots, Irish and Welsh fans gave. 

Clever – yes. Amusing – yes. And like all the best humour, based on a grain of truth. But from the Scots perspective at least, it has its roots in ancient history.

The United Kingdom has a common flag - the Union Jack, which symbolizes both the union of the crowns of 1603 and the union of parliaments in 1707. A union that, despite having been challenged in recent years, has nevertheless survived relatively unscathed for over 400 years. 

But Scotland had a prior alliance, with France, which has come to be known as the ‘Auld Alliance.’ It is one of the longest standing treaties in the world (more on that later). Renewed by successive monarchs it was based on a sense of a common enemy, and that enemy was England.

 

In 1579 David Chamber, one of the Lords of Council and Session at Edinburgh claimed that the Auld Alliance dated back to Philip I of France and Malcolm III of Scotland. If it did, no documentary evidence remains. 

 

The earliest extant record of the treaty is dated 23^rd October 1295 which John Balliol concluded with Philip the Fair. Balliol was technically only the Scottish King under the over-lordship of Edward I of England, so the terms of the treaty with France are somewhat surprising. It bound Scotland and France to provide mutual support in the event of war with England. 

                                                                         John Balliol 

An excerpt from the 1326 version of the treaty, between Charles IV of France and Robert I of Scotland, illustrates both the main terms and the tone of the treaty.

 

‘…a meet and necessary thing it is that princes should ally themselves together by bond of friendship and goodwill in order the grievances of those who desire to grieve them more forcibly to refrain; and the tranquility of them and of their subjects more peaceably to secure…with the noble prince Robert, by the grace of God King of Scotland our special friend, against the King of England, whose predecessors have often labored to aggrieve the said kingdoms of France and Scotland in many and sundry ways…’ 

 

Even more strikingly there was provision for what should happen in the event of either country making peace with England –

 

‘…if our kingdom shall make peace or truce with the king of England…the King of Scotland, his heirs shall be excepted; so that such peace shall be null whenever war is waged between the aforesaid kings of Scotland and England  …France shall be bound to make war upon the kingdom of England with all their force…firmly to observe, faithfully to perform and fully to accomplish.’  (Ditto in reverse.)

 

No wriggle room there then! The treaty was renewed at least 12 times between 1295 and 1543 and many of the original documents survive among the charters of France. They can be accessed via an inventory, catalogued by a M. du Tillet and printed in folio in 1588. One significant effect of this on-going treaty was a succession of contracts of marriage, beginning in 1235 with Edward Balliol (son of King John) to Joan, niece of the French King; with the most famous being the marriage of Mary Queen of Scots to the Dauphin Francis in 1558.

Mary Queen of Scots and Dauphin Francois

While the treaty was mutually beneficial, it does seem that the balance fell in favour of the French, with Scotland regularly providing troops, sometimes in very significant numbers, to aid the French in their wars with England, both on French and on English soil. 

There were notable wins for the Scots – in 1420 they defeated the English at Beange; but notable losses also – in 1326, following the French defeat at the Battle of Crecy, David II attacked the north of England but was routed at what has become known as the Battle of Neville’s Cross.  

Battle of Neville's Cross

The story goes that David, heavily wounded, fled the battlefield and took refuge under the arch of Aldin Grange Bridge on the river Browney. There he was said to have been betrayed by his own reflection in the river and was thus captured by John Coupland. Legend or truth, what is clear is that when Coupland delivered David to the English king, Edward, he was rewarded with  a substantial fee and a knighthood. David was imprisoned in the Tower of London for ten years and finally handed back to the Scots apparently for a ransom that would equate to c £15 million in today’s money.  Whether the ransom was actually paid is however a debatable point.  

Saddest of all the efforts of the Scots was the enormous loss of Scottish lives at the Battle of Flodden in 1513, when James IV attacked England in support of France despite the English King, Henry, being James’ brother-in-law. It was said that ‘the flower of Scottish nobility perished on that day’ and the lament ‘Flowers of the Forest’ commemorates the deaths of James and around 10,000 of his men. There were few of the leading families in Scotland untouched by that tragedy. The site of the battle and the fallen on both sides is commemorated in a memorial cross. It is near where I currently live and walking around the battlefield is incredibly atmospheric. 

                                                                 Site of the Battle of Flooden

 So what did the Scots get in return for centuries of service to France? Quite a bit actually. Many individuals received military, civil and ecclesiastical honours and offices, but most importantly, every Scot was entitled to letters of naturalization – in effect giving them the right to dual nationality. (Handy if you’re in trouble in your home country!)  That right was confirmed by Henry IV as late as 1599, with letters signed by him at the palace of Fontainbleau, and I love the detail - ‘sealed with the great seal in green wax, in a lace of red and green silk.’  This ensured that Scots could be testate in France and could both inherit and dispose of any assets they possessed there.  This is of relevance to my fictional family, the Munros, who are central figures in my Scottish trilogy, set in the real-life feud between the Cunninghame and Montgomerie families, called the 'Ayrshire Vendetta'.  

 

Another important result of the alliance was the establishment of the Gardes Ecossaise in 1418 – an elite troop that was supposed to be comprised entirely of Scots (that was the theory, however there is evidence that others were admitted and both Mary Queen of Scots and James VI are recorded as having made protests on that score.) The Gardes formed the royal bodyguard of successive French kings and their duties ranged from keeping the keys of the King’s bedchamber and assisting at the reception of ambassadors and waiting at coronations, baptisms and marriages of royal children, to carrying the body and guarding the effigy of a (dead) King. One captain of the Gardes was Robert Stewart of Aubigny and both he and the Auld Alliance are commemorated at a ceremony in Aubigny-sur-Neve to this day. 

My own interest in the Auld Alliance stems from researching the Gardes Ecossaise, because the real-life Patrick Montgomerie, one of my favourite historical characters in my trilogy, was a captain in this elite troop. His involvement in the Gardes allowed me to take my fictional family to France.

A  rather elegantly dressed Garde Ecossaise

But perhaps the most important advantage that the Auld Alliance gave to Scots were trading privileges for Scots merchants. They were required to pay only ¼ of the normal duty on all the goods that they imported from France to Scotland and were similarly acquitted from new duties imposed on merchandise they brought to France.  Interestingly these privileges didn’t stop even after the Act of Union in 1707 which formally linked England and Scotland under a single parliamentary system. English merchants continued to be penalized, while Scots merchants were not.

 

Historian Dr Siobhan Talbott has spent some years researching the treaty signed in 1295 and suggests that there is no evidence that it was ever formally rescinded. Others have suggested that it was dissolved by the Treaty of Edinburgh in 1560, as a by-product of the reformation in Scotland, but she is convinced that there isn’t anything in the treaty to support that view. Three facts also support her view – that Henry IV again ratified the naturalization of all Scots in 1599, that trading privileges continued even after 1707, and that in 1942 Charles de Gaulle made a speech describing the Auld Alliance as an active agreement; claiming it was the ‘oldest in the world’. If this is indeed true it is now 730 years old, and as such trounces the other contender for ‘oldest treaty’ – that between England and Portugal signed in 1373.  

 

Postscript: In 1906, under the Entente Cordiale, the part of the agreement that meant that Scots had the same rights in France as the native French was rescinded, but not made retrospective. Which means theoretically anyone born before 1906 could still claim dual nationality, even today.  Though, as I’m not aware of any Scots older than 120, it probably doesn’t matter too much now! 

 

Margaret Skea is the author of the prize-winning Munro Scottish Saga, as well as a fictionalised biography of Katharina von Bora, the wife of the reformer, Martin Luther, a contemporary missionary biography, and a collection of short stories.   These are available in selected UK bookshops or direct from Margaret's website at https://www.margaretskea.com and in print and kindle via Amazon https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/Margaret-Skea/author/B009B9HCUC?ref