The Knight Of The Garter (from The Voyages of Charles Teft Laurence)

Laurence had been discharged from his previous ship, Comorin on 20 December 1878.  He may have had time to celebrate Christmas and New Year at home in Bromley St Leonard, London with his wife Catherine and his one year and ten months old daughter Elizabeth. A few weeks later he stepped aboard the Knight of the Garter as first mate.

The Knight was owned by Greenshields, Cowie & Co. and built by the well-known firm of Thomas Royden & Son, Liverpool, and was launched from their Liverpool shipyard in October 1877.  The first ship of the Knight line to be built she was 233 feet long, with a beam of  37.9 feet and and holds 22.8 depth of  feet and with a gross weight of 1493 and net of 1433.  She had three masts, and was ship rigged.  She was constructed of  iron, had 2 decks and 1 cemented bulkhead. Her Code number – that is, the sequence of flags she flew to identify herself to shore stations or passing ships – was WVCT.  The National Museums of Liverpool have extensive Roydens records. Built for the jute trade she had a good turn of speed, that was to become apparent after my ancestors employment as mate.


I have an inward document for when the ship completed the voyage to Sydney from London. Laurence is listed as first mate. The master was James Hammond, aged 48 from Bristol whose Master Mariners certificate was number 33753. He had been Master of her since 1878. George Maitland, age 23 from Peterhead, Aberdeenshire was second mate on the voyage. His Master  Mariners certificate number was  03295 and had previously served on the Ben Nevis.

The crew had to be on the ship by noon on 27 January 1879. On the same trip esconced in the ships saloon was a Mr Greenshields. He could well have been Robert Low Greenshields of the ships owners Greenshields, Cowie and Co.

Laurence was to receive £8.00 a calendar month, and £4.00 went to Catherine and his daughter. As with the Comorin voyages he was the second best paid on the voyage.  The Knight left London on 29 January 1879  arriving in Sydney, NSW on 19 May 1879 with cases of goods, valued at £68, 700. What was in these cases?  An advert in The Maitland Mercury & Hunter River Advertiser for 10 May 1879 provides a clue: P. Capper & Sons, Maitland, and Capper Bros & Co. Newcastle. The Following Goods Are Invoiced To Arrive During The Present Month

Ex Knight of the Garter from London.

19 cases Gunpowder, in 1 and 1/2 lb flasks, FFF, Glass, Rifle, C and H diamond with . in Centre; 2 cases Square Black and Threaded Nuts; 8 cases of Looking Glasses, assorted; 6 Steel-faced Anvils; 4 Keys Sharp Point Gutter Brackets; 1 case Horse Rasps; 1 case Files, assorted: Taser Saw, half round and (illegible); 1 Cask Copper Rings and Washers, Galvanised Cone-Head Screws for O.G.Guttering; 1 case “Turkey” Stones; 1 case “Brakes” Patent Scythes; 3 bundles Spades, C.P. Black Sockets and N.P.; 3 Bundles Rib Spades, No.s 1,2 and 3, extra long and extra side strap riveted; 1 cask cut Tacks, assorted; 1 case coach lamps, deep bell fronts, 9 in. across; 3 cases of Bedsteads 6 1/2 x 41/2, 3 and 23/4 feet, assorted copies and patterns; 1 case Polished Snaffle Bits No.52 and 2: Stir-raps (Cradle Bottoms), Tulip Shovels, Screw and Drive Bell Carriages; Brass Cocks, Japanned Door Springs, assorted; 1 cask Polishing Black Lead Brushes, Water and Sweeps Brushes, Dram Bottles and Cups (Leather Cards), Plain and Plated Box Spoke Shaves, Screwed; 1 case coppered sofa springs,7,8,9,10 in. ; 1 case Foot lathes No. 321,36 and 42 in. Beds; Gut Drawing Bands, with hooks and eyes; 2 Crates Fenders, assorted; Assortment Camp Ovens and Covers; 1 case “Kley’s” C.F.Revolver Cartridges; 1 case chipping hoes; 1 case “Prices” Carriage Candles; 2 cases Bentalls Chaff Cutters; 1 case Dram Bottles and Cups; Meat Covers 12,14,16, 20 in; 6 Kips Chamois Leather; 1120 Bore BBH Iron; 20 Bundles Sheet Iron, 6 x 3 feet, 12,10,14,16,18, 209; 20 cases Gospel Oak Galvanised Corrugated Iron. Further adverts in the Sydney Morning Herald that appeared as the ship unloaded show the wide variety of goods the Knight brought into Sydney:
She left Sydney on 11 July 1879 with 7040 tons of coal for Balfour, Guthrie & Co., unloading at San Francisco. Arriving at this port on 12th September, 16 ABs deserted so another 16 ABs were engaged.  According to the daily newspaper Alta California of 29 October 1879, she left San Francisco laden with wheat for Europe arriving in Liverpool 2nd March 1880.


She left Liverpool on 10 April 1880 with more or less the same crew as the previous voyage. She gave herself less than a month to prepare for it. There was a new cook and boatswain. She arrived in Calcutta on 27 July. I can find no newspapers that detail the cargo. Outward it may have been machinery, coal, rails or cement, and homeward from India cotton, jute, rice and linseed. 4 ABs were discharged, and 4 engaged. She left  on 8 September and arriving in Hull on 24 December 1880. In the Bill of Duty for Hull it lists the inward goods as linseed, scrap iron and iron turnings for Moran and Sanderson.


She left North Shields February 21 1881. Again, the Captain was James Hammond. Laurence had to be on the ship by 6 February at 4 a.m. The new Second mate was Henry Wright, aged 20, from Whitby, certificate No. 06681.    An account of the voyage is chronicled in the Daily Alta California of 31 July 1881. At this point she was 152 days from North Shields; 2152 tons coal, 10 tons pig iron to Balfour, Guthrie & Co. Her journey is described in the same papers ‘memoranda’ section, the date of departure differs from the crew agreement: Sailed Feb 10; passed Start Point on the 17th; crossed equator March 9th, lon 27W; passed 50S in Atlantic April 19th, lon 6518W; passed through the Straits of Le Maire and passed 50S in Pacific May 7th, lon 80W; crossed equator June 5th., lon 115W; had fair run to lat of Rio; thence to 40S was 40 days, with light baffling winds and calms; had the usual Cape Horn weather, and thence to the equator had fair weather; was 30 days from 50S to the equator, and from thence to 20N was 28 days with light northerly and calms; thence to 30N moderate NE Trades; thence took westerly winds and on the 10th inst. had heavy northerly gale, during which split some sails. On April 12th lat 40S, lon 59W, saw Br. ship Oriflamme, from London to San Francisco; she had been in company for a week previous. Arrived San Francisco 12 July 1881, left 25 August, 1881. An account of the first part of the voyage is in the Sydney Morning Herald dated Saturday September 13, 1881. Sailed July 14th (?); passed north capes of New Zealand on the 19th. Carried westerly winds to the meridian of 180, thence to 150W, had N.E. winds, had moderate SE trades well to eastward; 60 miles West of Tahiti; lost the SE trades in lat 7N; got the NE trades in lat 10N, well to the eastward, passed 500 to the eastward of Sandwich Islands; thence had fresh westerly winds to the 9th inst. then a strong NNW gale and heavy sea, lasting 25 hours, during which sustained considerable damage about decks; had heavy NW sea for the past 10 days.   No clue as to cargo, but it may have again been wheat.   Sydney Morning Herald 28 May p.11
of the
have just opened a splendid assortment of Fancy Wool Goods, now on sale. Operettes, in white and coloured; Salisbury Capes, Shetland Wrap Tippets, Squares, Shawls, and every imagi-
nable Style and shape. These goods are exceptionally cheap,
being personally selected, but owing to the tedious passage of the Knight of the Garter, in which they were, they must he cleared
out, and at once. They have been marked very low to effect this
White Wool Operettes
White Carriage Rolls
White and Coloured Wraps.
of the Haymarket. Arrived Belfast 29 December 1881.


Departed Liverpool, 21 February 1882, bound for Calcutta. Returned Hull 27th November 1882. Again no newspaper evidence of the cargo but it may have been as described for voyage two. In the Bill of Duty for 28th November 1882 the inward cargo us listed as linseed for Moran and Sanderson.


As to her later life, on one occasion, she raced her sister ship Knight of the Thistle launched April 1878 home from the colonies to arrive at Falmouth within three hours of each other after a passage of 88 days. She was credited with 99 days from Portland, Oregon, to Kinsale Head in 1892 and two years later 79 days from Valparaiso to New York. In 1896 the decision was taken to sell her. Auctioned at Cardiff in 1897 she was bought by G.B.  and F. Razeto, Genoa, realising £5,400 and renamed Papa Emanuele. In 1902, bought by G.B. Figaro and A. Razeto, Genoa. 1907, bought by Armanino, Sanguinetti and Co. , Montevideo, renamed Montevideo. In 1912 bought by B. Savona fu G, Tapani, renamed Gaspare S. In 1917 she was reduced to a barque and in 1918 bought by E.N. Guglielmo fu F, Genoa. In 1919 by G.B.A. Piaggio, Genoa, who fitted her with an auxiliary steam engine.  Finally in 1923 bought by Armatori Riuniti Liguri-Lombardi, Genoa. In 1923 she was broken up.

Fag Ash

closer towards her.

Another three o’clock morning


drink together on the couch. Between fags

Move away from your mothers?

never understand till you do.

Cans/ fags grow

 Our feet covered in ash.


kick empties
grey mist rises.

Her hand caresses my thigh

Don’t know!

She sighs. The music too loud.

l owe my mother.

We cough hold our ears.

 Lose each other in mist

Sup again to wet our throats,

 clatter down grey hills.

What do you owe her?

She saved me from debt.

Emotional blackmail!

Stand up to her!

Lager and menthols between us


stereo muffled,

lifted by rubbish.

Her legs cross away

I’m trying to help you!

I know

We made love this time last night.

The Linen Town

In well drained soil sow flax seeds
watch blue bloom, then die

30 Days
seed bolls ripen, warm sun packed day
harvest, hand pull plants
bundle, stack root side down
Side a fence, turn by turn

 ensures even dry

Till firm stemmed, boll rattle

Rippling comb
dry plant pull

Chuck seeds
For 3 days retting
Water drowns plants
swells inner core
tautens fibre

Total rinse
spread out in fields to dry

Flax brake plants
for breaking
quick blows remove
inner bloom

remove last boon
chuck boon

Hackle bed comb
long fibres from shorter tow

Chuck tow

Total card
draws out fibres

Draw fibres
to even slivers

adds first twist to yarn

Sow, pull, dry,
ret, break, scutch, hackle,
card, draw, rove,

bleach, weave, mend,
crop, mangle, wash

Pack warehouse
Plain weave,
three/four leaf twill
huckabacks, dobby,
Jacquards, sheetings,
ticks, damasks,
towelling, ducks,
fancy Hollands.

Clean river Sough,
Clean air
Bright sun.

Two heraldic shuttle memory

The Watchmaker

Teft was my second great grand uncle. He was the fifth child and fourth son of Tom, my fourth great grandfather. He was baptised 17 September 1822, in Louth.
Tom, his father, was a Clerk to the Navigation. This was the Louth Navigation, a body of water used for the transport of goods like coal and corn from Louth to Hull and other ports down the East Coast. Tom would have worked for the Chaplin family who were the owners of the lease. At the time of Teft’s birth there is a record that Tom paid for a house, probably close to the Riverhead, where the warehouses loaded goods on to the sloops that worked the canal.
Teft’s father organized an apprenticeship for him and we find him in the 1841 census as an apprentice silversmith and clockmaker. (We do not know to whom he was apprenticed.) In 1842, he was also one of two secretaries for the Louth Mechanics Institute.
By October 1847, he was established in Louth as a clock and watchmaker  and advertised for an apprentice in the Stamford Mercury . He made further adverts in 1852 and 1855.
In the 1851 census ( 30 Mar 1851) he was living, along with his parents, in the home of John & Mary Ann Evison at Quarry Lane, Louth, and working as a watchmaker. Mary Ann was Teft’s  sister (and Tom and Mary’s only daughter.
On March 4th 1852, Teft married Ellen ( born in Louth in 1832), fourth daughter of the late William Portas, of the Rising Sun Inn, Louth. They had eleven known children, two of whom died in infancy; the 11th was born posthumously in 1866.


8 Day Longcase, dial clocks, and watches. The wooden cases would probably have been made by a local carpenter. By the 1840s/50s many Lincolnshire clocks were factory made in Birmingham. Local clock sellers would buy in the movements, and perhaps add their trade names to the clock face, and fit them into cases of different qualitie
Whilst living in Louth, Teft had a variety of brushes with the law:

-in September 1855, he was convicted in the penalty of 20s, and 8s. 6d, costs; for a trespass in search of game on lands at Raithby cum Maltby.

– in January 1857, he was taken to court by an apprentice. He appeared in court to answer a summons against him obtained by John Thompson, his apprentice, for discharging him and refusing to teach him his trade. The case occupied the court some considerable time, and eventually, he was prevailed upon to take the boy again, and teach him his trade.

– In 1861 whilst running his clockmaker’s business Teft and his wife also continued running their pub, The Rising Sun, which Rebecca had inherited from her parents. This led to a further court appearance in June 1859 in which he was reprimanded for serving alcohol to minors.
William Hutton (10), and Hy-Jarvis (12), both of this borough, were charged with stealing 3s from the shop of Ellis Housman, in Maiden Row. It appeared that Hutton stole the money during Mrs. Housmans absence. He gave Jarvis 1s. of it, that they then went to the dram-shop of the Rising Sun tavern in Walker-gate, kept by Teft Lawrence, where to his shame these two children , one 10 and the other 12 years old, were supplied each with three squibs of gin, which Hutton drank neat, but the other diluted, and that the result if the money was spent in pies and other things. Hutton to be imprisoned for one month and once whipped, and the evidence not quite so clear against Jarvis he was cautioned and discharged. At a licensing session later in the year Teft was cautioned for this offence by the licencing courts.

– And in June 1864, Teft again found himself in Court before J.G. Teed, Esq. Judge. There was a claim for £1.19s for washing done by plaintiffs wife who had been defendant’s washerwoman for about ten years. In the first instance she had arranged to wash the family at the rate of 2s 6d. per week. This was increased to 3s when the number of children had increased from two to seven. According to the plaintiffs statement, 3d. per week extra was agreed to be paid for washing for Mr. Lawrence (Sen.) and the agreement was made on 19th of March, 1861. The additional 3d. had been allowed to run on for three years until it amounted to the sum now sued for. Mr. Wood, who appeared for defendant, attempted to show that if there was a debt it was old Mr. Lawrence’s, but plaintiff strongly asserted that an arrangement was made between Mrs. Lawrence and herself, which if true, clearly proved that the former had linked the two washings together, being answerable for both. She said Mrs Laurence wished the old gentlemans washing to go on for a year, when it would amount to a nice round sum – Mr. Laurence altogether repudiated this liability, and said no claim had been made upon him until the plaintiffs wife was discharged from washing on the 10th of May last. When she owed defendant for a watch her husband had purchased of him, and considered the arrears would pay for it. Defendant had demanded cash for the watch under the threat of a county summons. She therefore paid for it, and now sued him for what he owed her. – Verdict for the Plaintiff.

In April 1861, Teft Lawrence, watchmaker, applied to the magistrates for a transfer of the licence of the Rising Sun public-house, lately kept by Mrs. Portas, deceased. Application granted. (In 1820 William Odling was landlord of the Rising Sun and at some point the licence passed to William Portas, who died in 1846, at which point his widow Rebekah became licensee.)
Teft did not enjoy the job of landlord for long as in November of that year the Rising Sun was sold to Mr. Connor for £850. In 1859, Ellen’s mother, Rebekah died.
In the census dated 7 Apr 1861 Teft is living at 3, Aswell Lane, Louth along with Ellen and five children; he was working as a watchmaker employing 2 apprentices.
Also in 1861, Teft was involved in a complicated court case involving his brother-in-law John Evison . (John, who was a butcher, seemed to have been caught up in a number of financial issues, leading to his becoming bankrupt.) He we can read of the matter in the London Gazette.
“Notice is hereby given, that by an indenture bearing date the 21st day of May, 1861, John Evison, of Louth, in the county of Lincoln, Butcher and Farmer, duly assigned all his estate and effects, as therein mentioned, unto Teft Laurence, of Louth aforesaid, Watchmaker, Thomas Smith Welch, of Louth aforesaid, Farmer, and William Thompson Phillips, of Utterby, in the said county of Lincoln, Farmer, in trust, for the equal benefit of themselves, and all other creditors of him the said John Evison, who should execute the said indenture within three calendar months from the date thereof, and that the said indenture was executed by the said John Evison, Teft Laurence, and William Thompson Phillips, on the said 21st day of May, 1861, and by the said Thomas Smith Welch, on the 22nd day of May, 1861, in the presence of, and attested by, John Hyde Bell, of Louth, aforesaid, Solicitor. And notice is hereby also given, that the said indenture now lies at our office, in Louth aforesaid, for inspection and execution by the creditors of the said John Evison.-Dated this 22nd day of May, 1861.
By order, INGOLDBY and BELL, Solicitors to the Assignees. “
But this same indenture then became the matter of litigation, involving not only Evison and Teft but also William Laurence (Teft’s older brother and a Liverpool hotelier).  The court action which took place in March 1862 is described as follows:
Lawrence v. Walmsley (John Walmsley was a Manure and bone merchant)
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Willis were for the plaintiff, and Mr. Field and Mr. Bealey for the defendant.
This was an action on a promissary note for £200 given by defendant. The defendant pleaded that he did not make the note, that he made it as a surety, that the amount should have been called in within three years, and that as it was not called in within that time the power of recovering was lost. He also pleaded that the words of the memorandum at the back of the note were a mistake of the parties. For the rest he pleaded that he was never indebted.
Mr. Macaulay, Q. C., then opened the case at considerable length, and  called the following witnesses: –
Wm Michael Lawrence, deposed: I am Innkeeper at Liverpool. My brother is a shopkeeper at Louth. Evison is a butcher and farmer, and also lives at Louth. In January, 1858, Evison applied time for £600, in addition to £100 he had previously. Previous to that I received this letter (produced) and met my brother, Mr. Evison, and Mr. Walmsley. The note was drawn up, and Evison received from me £600. The note is as follows: “£200 sterling, on demand, with interest at £6 per cent.”  The note was signed by both parties. At the back is a memorandum about the money being paid in three years. After the note was signed, I asked Evison how he would be able to pay the money. His reply was that he should be able to pay yearly. I told him he had better pay nothing for the first year, as he might be pressed for money. Mr. Walmsley said that was,a very important question, as he should not like to be called upon for the money immediately, even if Evison could not pay. I told him he need not be afraid, as I would endorse the back of the note with a memorandum to the effect that I would not take any proceedings within three years. I wrote the memorandum, read it out loud, and Evison signed it. In May last year I saw the defendant again at my brother’s shop. I said to him that I had come over to look into the affairs of John Evison, hearing that they were in a bad state. He advised me to serve Evison with a writ to save himself as well as myself. I said I would do so. He said nothing to me then about  about my having allowed three years to pass by. On the following morning I ordered a writ to be served.
Cross-examined by Mr. Field: I am brother-in-law to Mr. Evison, and some years ago I lent him £100 on a note of his own. On this occasion he was about taking a farm, and had not enough money for the inventory, and advanced it to him. When I went to Louth about lending the money, I did not see Evison before the bill was drawn up. Evison never told me that Mr. Walmsley was willing to become surety for three years. I have received nothing from Evison on account of the bill excepting the interest.
Teft Lawrence deposed: I am a watchmaker at Louth, and am brother to the plaintiff. I was present at the signing of the note: Evison and Walmsley were also present. After the note was signed my brother asked Evison how he could repay the money, and he replied that he could do it at the rate of £100 a-year. My brother said, “Well, John, as you may be short of cash the first year or two, I’d give you three years to pay the bill.” Walmsley said, “Thank you: Will you put that at the back of the note.”  My brother wrote it and Evison signed. The £200 were to be paid off before the £500: Walmsley requested this, and my brother agreed to it. Nothing was said about Walmsley had a conversation in my presence. Walmsley begged my brother to sue Evison for his sake: he said nothing about his liability being only for three years.
Cross-examined by Mr. Field: Walmsley never said anything about the £200 being paid within three years. I believe my brother came to Louth the day previous to the meeting, when Walmsley asked him to sue Evison. This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Field, for the defendant, said that the case had previously been before the Court of Common Pleas in the shape of a demarrer. It was then doubted whether the plea, that the memorandum at the back of the note was a mistake, was good, and it was held that if it could be satisfactorily shown that the defendant expressly stipulated with Lawrence that his liability should only be for three years, the latter of course could not now recover the money.
His Lordship said the memorandum at the back of the note was concurred in by all parties, and he thought the plea of mistake was now excluded. The matter now rested on the legal effect of the memorandum.
His Lordship: But you must show that the other parties were also mistaken.
Mr. Field then proceeded to address the jury with respect to the memorandum, maintaining that it was binding upon Evison or the defendant to pay off the £200 within three years. He then called.
John Walmsley, the defendant, who deposed: In the month of January, 1858, I was present with the plaintiff and his brother-in-law about a loan. Before the note was signed I said that I would become surety if the amount should be paid off within three year, by three equal yearly installments. Plaintiff, in reply, said, “Evison can you do that,” and he answered” I can.” Lawrence then said, ” On these conditions, then, I’d lend the money.” I said that in order to make myself safe that note must be endorsed at the back: the plaintiff wrote it, and Evison signed it. About two years after it was signed I saw the plaintiff at Louth, and asked him how Evison was going on about that matter of mine, and he said “All right.” In May of last year I did not beg of Lawrence to sue for the note for his own sake as well as mine.
John Evison deposed:  In 1858 I applied to my brother-in-law, Mr. Lawrence, to lend me some money, and he was willing to do so on security. I applied to Mr. Millson to be security: he refused and I afterwards applied to Walmsley, who consented. I wrote to Mr. Lawrence, or my wife wrote, on the 24th of January, telling him that Walmsley would be the security. The plaintiff accordingly came over to Louth, and we had a meeting. Walmsley said that he would be my security for £400 to be paid back within three years: this was in the hearing of the plaintiff or his brother. After the note was drawn up and signed, the plaintiff said to me, “John shall you be able to do this,” and I replied that I thought I should be able to discharge it within three years. The memorandum was written upon the note at the request of Mr. Walmsley, and I signed it.
This was the case for the defendant.
After some discussion between the counsel for both parties, Mr. Field obtained leave to amend the plea, and at the dictation of the Judge the plea  was thus altered, “That defendant agreed as surety, and that, in conformity with the agreement between the parties, a memorandum was endorsed on the note in the following terms:-Memorandum: This note is to be paid off within three years  from date: notwithstanding such agreement, plaintiff did not within the three years obtain payment of the amount due on the note.”
His Lordship: I construe the plea as altered as supported by the memorandum. It is for the Court to say whether the plea is good, and bears the construction put upon it by me. The verdict will be for the defendant, with leave to plaintiff to move for £200 and interest. Replication and demurrer to the amended plea to be added to the record.”
Teft died on August 28 1865, aged 42, at his home and workplace, 3, Aswell Lane, aged 42, of ‘Otitis’, Typhoid Fever. It was witnessed by a Charlotte Skipworth, was their house servant. (Edward Skipworth had married Mary Teft’s sister Charlotte in the 1820s.) Tom had lost his second son.
His probate was issued on 8 Sep 1865 Lincoln, Lincolnshire, England ( Estate under £1,500). His will gave the house and contents to Ellen, leaving the rest to trustees, his brother William Michael and John Cotton Portas, a Draper of Hull.
Ellen carried on the watchmakers business and she appears in the 1871 census taken on 2 Apr 1871, living at 3 Aswell Lane, as a widowed watchmaker. In Mar 1877 she married Richard Boyall but he died shortly thereafter.
In the census taken 3 Apr 1881 she still lives at 3 Aswell Lane,  describing herself as a widowed watchmaker.
In the census taken 5 Apr 1891, she has moved to 11 George Street, Louth, and is living on own means. Her son, Edward Cotton had now taken over the watchmakers shop at 3, Aswell lane. In the census taken 31 Mar 1901 she is still living in Louth, and living on own means). She died in  1907 age 75
As a couple they had eleven known children.
They first had a daughter whom they named Mary Portas. She was born 31 Dec 1852 in  Louth, and baptised 21 Jan 1853. She died 9 Aug 1855 in Louth, Lincolnshire, England. The second was a son,  John LAURENCE, born 9 Feb 1854 and baptised 3 Mar 1854. He died 7 Jan 1858 Louth. The third was another son, Teft LAURENCE, born 22 Apr 1855 and baptised 13 May 1855; he died near Derby in 1888. The fourth was a daughter, Emily Eva, born Christmas Eve 24 Dec 1856 and baptised 14 Jan 1857  (died in Louth in 1948).Their fifth was also a daughter,  Ellen, born 6 May 1858 and baptised 28 May 1858 (died in Hull in 1947). The sixth, also a daughter Rebecca, born 1859 Louth, Lincolnshire, England (died 1925 in Spilsby).  The seventh was John William, born 1860 Louth ( died in Hull in 1947).The eighth George Thomas, born 1862 (died 1944 in Louth).In the census dated 5 Apr 1891 with mother at 11 George Street, Louth, Lincolnshire, England (coach painter). In the census dated 31 Mar 1901 with mother at Louth as a coach painter. The ninth was  Henry Michael Portas, born 1863 and died in Louth in 1935.  Their tenth was Edward Cotton born 1865 Louth. In the census dated 3 Apr 1881 with his mother at 3 Aswell Lane as an apprentice watchmaker. In Dec 1888 he married Rose HALL (b. 1871, d. ?). In 1889 they had a son, Frank and in 1890 a daughter, Nellie. In 1892, another son, George and another daughter in 1895. In 1897 a son, Harold  and 1899 Reginald LAURENCE. Another son in 1901 Walter. In the census dated 31 Dec 1901 he was living at 3 Aswell Street, Louth, Lincolnshire, England as a watchmaker. Edward died in Louth in 1948.
The eleventh child of Teft and Ellen was Walter Allen Ernest, born posthumously in Mar 1866 in Louth. About Mar 1887 he married Elizabeth Short JACKSON (b. 1869,d. 1893) at Thorpe St Peter, Lincolnshire. They had a daughter Ellen E. born 1888 at Thorpe St Peter. Another, in 1890 called Minnie, born in Runcorn, Cheshire. In the census dated 5 Apr 1891 they are living at 20 Portland Street, Runcorn, Cheshire and Walter is a carpenter’s labourer. In 1893 they had another daughter Maud Edith in Runcorn. Walter remarried in June 1897. His wife was called Mary Alice LAYLAND (b. 1873,d. ? ) from Lancashire. They had a son in 1899 called Emil A. And a daughter in Dec 1900 called Ethel. By the census dated 31 Mar 1901 they had moved to 49 Suffolk Street, Runcorn,  and Walter is a chemical works labourer. He died in Runcorn in 1943.

The Mounting Steps (1793, Peaudanes Diary)

I heard eighty three year old John Wesley speak today from the mounting steps of The White bear Inn. His step was firm, his appearance vigorous and muscular. A clear, smooth forehead, an aquiline nose, lightest and most piercing eyes, freshness of complexion. His countenance and demeanour was cheerfulness mixed with gravity; an unusual flow of spirits but a mark of tranquillity. In dress, a pattern of neatness and simplicity. A narrow plaited stock, a coat with a small upright collar, no buckles at his knee, no silk or velvet in any part of his apparel and a head as white as snow.
He preached for an hour or so, filled out and varied the basic material with anecdotes and illustrations. Throughout he spoke in plain language. His subject appropriate for this commercial town: gain all you can, save all you can, give all you can. When we gain all we can it must be from honest trades, we must not haggle over prices and usury should not be tolerated. Conspicuous consumption is wastefulness. We gain and save only to give, and when we give we should do so to the poor. Salvation for all is not dependent on good works but must issue from good works as part of our progress.
He who is holy, humble, courteous, mild,
And who, as heav’n’s viceregent strives to prove Himself entitled to the rank he holds,
Deserves our admiration and applause.
What an economist thou wast of time; What method, regularity, and form, Thou shew’dst in ev’ry action of thy life, And all this for the honour of thy God, And the advantage of thy fellow men, without a mercenary view in it,
I cannot but applaud thee for such deeds Admire thy ardour, venerate thy name, And eulogize thee, as the best of men.

The Decision To Use First Names

I said to Friend Peaudane, as we walked Dearne Flats by the serpentine river that he has more than proved his worth as a husband. I would gladly accept him in such a position and be willing to bear him children to cement our association. He answered that it is only a beginning and we must both strive for the ends I described to him at the beginning, extravagance in OUr generosity towards others, nboth personally and publicly. It is now Friend Peaudane, that wishes me to call him Richard as he shall call me Sarah and that we should wait a time yet till we are married. He has his duty to Joseph and family to fulfill.
Yesterday he was present when Susannah, Joseph’s wife gave birth to their second son. Joseph and his brother James who is now living there too pacing up and down, wanting to drown his sorrows, while Richard soothed his furrowed brow with optimistic expressions. But, upon the reception of the child after its sojourn with Susannah, Joseph was all Pray god children are ugly when there but bairns. Richard saw the pride in Joseph’s eyes. Richard wishes to prove his worth to me as a wife as soon as Joseph and Susannah have found a cottage at a place called Old Mill. Here Joseph will raise kine and have a loom. His brother James is to
lodge with Mrs Jackson at the King’s Head. I shall move in with Richard promptly.

The Proposal of Richard Peaudane

I propose a News room for our town. It would enable commercial men as myself to remove ignorance and promote self improvement: a place where new ideas could be discussed, away from the mughouses: where only nonsense is spoken. Clearly, for its upkeep a small charge must be made. More, perhaps for those living outside the toll-bars. Such is the hope for this town that rumours are alive of plans being prepared for the coming of the canal; coaches and packmen being unreliable and prone to attack
from brigands and highwaymen. A News room would show foreign tradesmen that the men of this town have a great hope for its prosperity, and prevent the incidence of rumour that is brought forth through ignorance

Dress Sense

Friend Richard Peaudane has removed his garish dress and thinks to impress me with this. I reminded him of my other stipulation: plainness of manner. He says he has observed John Wesley preaching in the town and would hold him also as another example of neatness and cleanliness. Methodists hold much the same persecuted position in this society as we held in the previous century; prone to preaching so as to change society, a cause we have fallen from, after much of our brethren were persecuted. Though, it must be said they support our Friend William Wilberforce in his fight against slavery, Perhaps Friend Peaudane is correct in following John Wesleys example: A black frock without decoration and a white ruffle, In appearance, at least, he is what I would hope for in a spouse.I then reminded him, that though plain in appearance, the nature of a Quaker is consideration for others. I espoused my belief in the evils of slavery. A commercial man, I was surprised that he also felt the indignity, the horrific notion of one man the slave of another as the basis for a good society was a venal sin. With each conversation and change in the man, if only cosmetic I begin to see his fair and just side. This has impressed upon me more than his change of costume.


11. The Five Pounds

I have been giv’n proof of my recovered nature.

Tommy Morton, tinker, in his old age and pauperism has placed five pounds in my hands for his funeral.

On his death I will transport his remains to Monk Bretton, to the Friends burial ground, where he may rejoin his wife, That is his wish and I shall grant it.

It is said a fellow once brought Tommy sixpence to mend. It being neatly and expeditiously executed the fellow asked

How much is it to be?

Sevenpence Tommy replied.

Sevenpence. That is more than the sixpence is worth!

Exactly so, but that is no reason why I should depreciate the value of my labour.

The fellow duly paid and Tommy aware that the fellow was not entirely satisfied offered him a can of flip from the local mughouse.

Tommy occupied the middle shop at the bottom of Market Hill along with a smithy and a barbershop, all by the side of Sough Dyke that flows through the town, and o’er which Sough Bridge bends. His original premises, being considered an obstruction and an eyesore, having fallen into decay and not being able to hold another house Tommy domiciliated himself in the Jury Room of the old Moot Hall, atop Market Hill, where he remained until he was half starved, and whence he was removed to the workhouse. His premises were demolished to improve the topography of the town. I will do all I am able to help him out.

6. The Serpentine Dearne

I went for a walk with Friend Dearman at Dearne Flats. I have decided that this relationship should become more public and thereby confirm the rumours of our companionship. The River Dearne, though prone to dangerous flooding has its own delights. And The Flats are known for their courting couples and rusticating. A note upon this word: rusticating would once have been frowned upon. After all, what can be gained from grass and trees for they are wasteland. Just as the soul can be desolate and made beautiful, perhaps with change in mood, even the worst excesses of tree, grass and river can be seen to improve the soul.

Still Friend Dearman sees philanthropy towards others, plainness of dress and mildness of manner as ends in themselves. I told him that the only path by which he can show real change is for him to have ideas and manners of his own. Too many Commercial men are taken in by the mechanical nature of change. It is the human heart that must change too. He must no longer see the Dearne as a navigable waterway and more as a stream that gives life to its surroundings. I am not only to be his wife but a companion too.

I said to Friend Peaudane, as we walked Dearne Flats by the serpentine river that he has more than proved his worth as a husband. I would gladly accept him in such a position and be willing to bear him children to cement our association. He answered that it is only a beginning and we must both strive for the ends I described to him at the beginning, extravagance in our generosity towards others, both personally and publicly. It is now Friend Peaudane, that wishes me to call him Richard as he shall call me Sarah and that we should wait a time yet till we are married. He has his duty to Joseph and family to fulfill.

Yesterday he was present when Susannah, Joseph’s wife gave birth to their second son. Joseph and his brother James who is now living there too pacing up and down, wanting to drown his sorrows Clearly, since he ventured upon this self improvement his mind has moved to the self improvement of others and I find he likes himself. He should be wary of too much pride in what he knows of himself. New converts are likely to be over vociferous for others conversion. Knowledge is power.