The Jewel of Knightsbridge

by Harrod, Robin;

  The Humble Petition of the aforesaid Charles Henry Harrod late of Cable Street in the county of Middlesex, Grocer but now a prisoner in his Majesty’s Gaol of Newgate.

  Respectfully Sheweth

  That your unhappy Petitioner was convicted at the late Sessions of the Central Criminal Court for having received a bag of currants, the property of John Booth and Ingledew, of Thames Street, Wholesale Grocers.

  That your unhappy Petitioner does not presume to impugn the verdict which has been found against him, but he humbly hopes that upon the merciful consideration of his case which it may receive from His Most Gracious Majesty’s clemency, some modification of the punishment awarded to him, which is that of Seven Years Transportation, may be extended to his supplication for mercy upon the following circumstances.

  That your Petitioner by the mercantile panic of the year 1825, was reduced from the competence of a respectable and responsible Tradesman, to encounter with all the difficulties of the commercial embarrassments at which the wealthiest trembled for the sufficiency of their immediate resources, when it was almost impossible for those in his situation to struggle successfully against circumstances which involved so many thousands in total ruin.

  That since that period, your unhappy Petitioner has been arduously endeavouring, by incessant application and unwearied industry to repair his shattered fortune, and up to the present period has maintained an irreproachable character, and that even with the disclosure of the approver, his evidence went only to prove that your Petitioner received the single article of property in question, and that only a few days before his apprehension, although his house and premises are deposed to have been carefully watched, both day and night, for some time previous to the transaction.

  That your petitioner has a wife and two Children, the eldest only three years and a half, and the youngest little more than a year old; both, as well as his most unfortunate partner, in delicate health, and threatened with the most unfortunate consequences, should your unhappy Petitioner be removed from this country for the term of seven years.

  This statement revealed to me for the first time the existence of an older child, born in about 1832 (making an eventual total of six). The name and sex of this child is still not known. I had previously found the details of four, or possibly five, children for Charles and Elizabeth, but had seen no trace of another. From other correspondence I now know this child died less than a year later, whilst Charles was in prison in early 1837. The younger of the two children was Elizabeth Digby Harrod, who died in 1839.

  By a process of deduction, it is possible to surmise that this unidentified older child, who would have been the eldest in the family, would have been a boy. As the firstborn children were named after father and/or mother, and Charles and Elizabeth incorporated Digby in all their children’s names, he would have been called Charles Digby Harrod. As he died, the next boy, my great-grandfather, was given this name. If the child had been a girl, she would have been called Elizabeth Digby Harrod, but the baby could not have been a girl as their second child, born whilst the first was still alive, used this name. I have searched the records for the birth of another Charles Digby with no success.

  Charles Henry concludes his statement:

  For with his naturally weak constitution, now still more enfeebled by his anxiety and misery, and his general health very materially affected, he bitterly feels that he could have no hope of any return to his family but that a transportation for that period would find its termination only in the grave.

  Your unfortunate Petitioner therefore, in the deepest affliction, most humbly implores of His Most Gracious Majesty’s clemency that he may not be removed from this country; but that the punishment may be moderated so as to give him some hope of being restored to his family, and enable him to show his grateful sense of the mercy extended to him, by the propriety of his conduct for the remainder of his life.

  And Your Petitioner shall ever pray, &c

  Chs Henry Harrod

  Dated May 20th 1836.

  The other parts to the documents are:

  1 A ‘memorial’, the equivalent of a petition, signed by a list of sixty-three colleagues and friends asking the Home Secretary for commutation of his sentence so that he can stay in the London environs. The list consists of businessmen mostly from the City of London, but ranging from a Dissenting minister, to a surgeon, builders, a coal merchant and numerous shopkeepers.

  2 Another memorial signed by thirty-seven individuals, mostly from North London.

  3 A memorial signed by a further thirty-seven individuals, mostly from the City and Southwark.

  4 Another memorial signed by fifty-three individuals, mostly neighbours in the Cable Street and Well Close Square area.

  (That makes a total of 190 people who had signed the various petitions.)

  5 An appeal for mitigation from William Mason, a glover of Fore Street in the City. He wrote:

  Feeling strongly for him and his family, having known him during a period of Five and Twenty Years, and being convinced that up to the time of this most unfortunate transaction, he had maintained an unblemished and irreproachable Character, I respectfully beg to offer my humble Testimonial in his favour. Allow me earnestly to solicit your Lordship’s attention to the fact that he was originally a Linen Draper, but unsuccessful in Business, and was unacquainted with the Trade which he has had for the last Two or Three Years pursued.

  A friendship of twenty-five years would take the date back to 1811, just when Charles’s mother had died. Could William Mason be related to his mother’s Mason family? An attempt to find out more about William Mason has so far not produced any results, though there are several William Masons in the Hartest parish records:

  6 An appeal for mitigation from John Pollard Searle, a tailor from Shoreditch, who stated he had known Charles for some years and said, ‘he has always sustained the character of an honest and upright tradesman.’

  7 An appeal for mitigation from James Baker, a surgeon who had known him for five years.

  8 An appeal for mitigation from James Brown.

  9 An appeal for mitigation from John Hewitt, chemist and druggist of Cable Street, who stated:

  I beg further to inform your Lordship that from his heretofore sober & industrious habits and from his assiduity & perseverance in business which I have had daily opportunities of witnessing on account of his occupying the house adjoining mine, I should have no objection to become security for his future good conduct.

  10 The report from Mr Capper, surgeon, mentioned earlier. He saw Charles on the Leviathan and his report was very brief, ‘… is rather a weakly and debilitated subject, altho’ not labouring under any specific Disease’.

  11 The police report from a superintendent at Whitechapel 1st Division. A rather mixed report, though on balance probably supportive. He stated:

  I should say he was irreproachable; a Mr Hewit who is a respectable Chymist living near his [Harrod’s] late residence, assured me he would readily become security for him, to the amount of One Thousand Pounds and several others seem to have equal confidence in his honesty.

  A person named Habgood an Oilman, and a Mrs Henshaw, grocer, insinuate they had heard he was a receiver of stolen goods, but can prove nothing, and I fear they speak interestedly being in the same trade and it is evidence to me that there is a jealousy.

  The basic argument of the various appeals for clemency for Charles were that he had maintained an irreproachable character; he had a wife and two young children, all in delicate health, to support; his own health was poor; the evidence of the principal witness for the prosecution was questionable; the prisoner had conducted himself well in Millbank Penitentiary; and his elder child had died during his imprisonment.

  The outer folder concluded, ‘Not to go abr’d – until the case is decided.’ It ends, ‘Inform all. Was ord’d to Pen’y 29 June 1836.’ So, as a result of this appeal by a Member of Parliament, backed by statements from Charles Henry himself, many of hi
s friends and colleagues, and medical and police reports, Charles Henry was reprieved from transportation to Australia and instead sent to prison after just four weeks on the hulk.

  Charles was sent to Millbank Prison, an enormous prison which stood on the site now occupied by Tate Britain, the Chelsea College of Art and Design and the Millbank Housing Estate. In the meantime, his eldest child had died and his own health was failing. His widowed brother, William Frederick, had been running the shop and living on the premises.

  After a year in prison, Charles’s wife, Elizabeth, sent in her own petition. It was dated 1 May 1837 and it contained an impassioned plea:

  To the Right Honourable His Majesty’s Secretary of State for the Home department.

  The Humble Petition of Elizabeth Harrod the Wife of the above named Charles Henry Harrod.

  Sheweth,

  That in consequence of the nature of the case and previous unblemished character of your Petitioner’s husband several memorials signed by a great number of very respectable persons were presented to your Lordship by G. Grote Esquire one of the members of the Honourable House of Commons.

  That during the long confinement of nearly twelve months in the Penitentiary Mill Bank your Petitioner’s husband has as your Petitioner is assured conducted himself with great propriety.

  That your Petitioner is of a weakly constitution and incapable of supporting himself and Infant child.

  That recently the Elder child of your Petitioner has been removed by death which has added to your Petitioner’s afflictions.

  That your Petitioner’s husband is subject to illness which confinement is calculated seriously to increase and to render fatal to him.

  That should your Petitioner’s husband remain in confinement much longer your Petitioner can have no hope of ever overcoming the consequences.

  Your Petitioner therefore must earnestly pray your Lordship to save her and her husband and child from absolute and irreparable ruin and premature death, by mercifully remitting further confinement of your Petitioner’s husband.

  And your Petitioner shall ever pray, Elizabeth Harrod. Cable St, May 1st 1837

  Her letter was countersigned by another twenty-five local people, amongst whom were no fewer than four Mr Masons. This page was headed with the annotation:

  We the undersigned beg very respectfully to recommend the case of Charles Henry Harrod to your Lordship’s merciful consideration in consequence of his previous good conduct and unblemished character, and we beg also to assure your Lordship that we have no doubt of his after well doing.

  It must have been difficult to ignore this plea, and the authorities obviously agreed that Charles had been punished enough. Although there is no official document available to confirm this, I suspect he was freed soon afterwards. There is a scribbled and only partially decipherable note across the top of her letter, my best interpretation of which is, ‘Rec’d from Mr Ald’n Wood, Can’t hold incarcerated, pardon when seen G. C?ance.’

  From all the documents available that I have read, it looks to me as though Charles Henry had probably been involved in receiving stolen goods before the episode that led to his arrest. Perhaps it was common practice in the trade. He was a lucky man to survive this episode. Charles would have been reunited with his wife and remaining child sometime during the spring or summer of 1837. London would have been a different place without him!

  Charles Henry was not the only one who had been in trouble. His brother William was arrested and put on trial in early 1839. Like his brother, he was charged with receiving stolen goods. The initial case, held at Union Hall, was reported in the Morning Advertiser of 14 January:

  On Saturday, John Terry, an errand boy in the service of Mr Paul, a surgeon, of Lambeth, and Wm. Dine, were placed at the bar on a charge of stealing, and Wm. Harrod, a silversmith and tobacconist, in Tooley Street, with receiving, knowing them to be stolen, a quantity of large silver spoons.

  The prosecutor had a few friends to dinner on New Year’s day when the prisoner Terry was employed to clean the plate for his master; soon afterwards three large and two dessert silver spoons were missed, and on the boy being charged with the theft, he acknowledged that he and his ‘pal’ Dine had stolen the spoons, broken the bowls from the handles and sold them to Harrod, who gave them 5s for the large and 3s for the small spoons.

  Harrod recollected Dine’s selling him some spoons, and expressed his sorrow that he took them from him without inquiry, and hoped his character would render him above suspicion.

  The boys acknowledged selling the spoons to Harrod. And the Magistrate committed all three for trial.

  The main trial was held at the New Court a month later, and was again covered by the Morning Advertiser. By a piece of good fortune, William was acquitted:

  Discharge by Proclamation

  At nine o’clock, the Grand Jury having been discharged, the nineteen following prisoners, whose bills they had ignored, were brought into Court and discharged by proclamation.

  William was one of these nineteen. I assume this must have been because of some technical problem. Another amongst those reprieved included a youth called Charles Atkins. The report recounts his cheeky words of thanks, ‘this youth put himself in a Court attitude, and said, “My Lord, I’m very much obliged to you.”’

  Frederick’s trial was only four months before Charles and Elizabeth’s second child, Elizabeth Digby, died. She was buried at St Mary’s, Whitechapel. She would have been 4 years old. In late 1839, Charles and Elizabeth had no children left alive, Charles had a criminal record and Charles’s brother had one remaining child.

  Following these events, the trail of Charles’s life and business goes quiet for some years. Hopefully, he had learnt his lesson and spent his time building up his shop as a reformed man. I suspect he never strayed again after his release, and as we shall see, he later gained a reputation for honest dealing.

  It was providential that Charles returned home when he did, as his brother William Frederick died just a year later in 1840, aged 43, according to his death certificate. Rather oddly, this event happened in Milton, Gravesend, in Kent, He was recorded as being a ‘working jeweller’ and his cause of death was given as ‘rheumatism’. This term could have applied to any form of joint disease, and might have signified some bone disease such as osteomyelitis or tuberculous joint disease. Although he died in Gravesend, I think he was just visiting the area as his burial entry is in the parish of St James’s, Clerkenwell, and shows that he was still living in Tooley Street, Southwark. He was probably buried in a Nonconformist cemetery in Clerkenwell. According to the burial entry he was aged 47 at death, making his year of birth 1793, which led to some of my confusion about dates.

  William’s only remaining child, William Frederick, would have been just a month or two short of his fourteenth birthday when his father died and, as such in the Victorian era, nearly at an age when he could become independent. He may have lived with Charles and Elizabeth for a while, but by 1842 he was living in Southwark, apprenticed to a vintner called Edward Cuff. He remained in Southwark for the rest of his life, dying in 1853 at the age of 27. He was at the time working as a cook. The whole of that branch of the family had been wiped out in the thirty years following William Frederick Senior’s marriage.

  Charles Henry was not totally dormant as, on 25 January 1841, Elizabeth gave birth in Cable Street to their third child, Charles Digby Harrod, then their only child. The 1841 census, which was held soon after on 6 June 1841, gives us some insight into the family at the time. Present, apart from mother, father and baby, Charles Digby, there was a 15-year-old girl, Ann Digby. Little is known about her otherwise. Perhaps she was a relation of Elizabeth’s, staying with them as a servant to help with the new baby.

  Making up for lost time, Charles and Elizabeth had three further children, all boys, whilst they lived at 4 Cable Street. William Digby was born in December 1842, Henry Digby was born in July 1845, and Joseph Digby was born in May 1847.

&nbs
p; By the end of the 1840s, all seemed to be going well for the family. The four children were growing up, healthy as far as we know at this stage. The business was obviously thriving as by 1849 Charles Henry had opened a wholesale business at 38 Eastcheap. The Post Office Directory lists him there as ‘Harrod Charles Henry, Wholesale Grocer’. He traded there for some years but by 1855 he had moved and the 1857 directory now shows him at 12 Eastcheap, in shared premises as ‘Harrod, Chas. Henry wholes. Grocer’. The premises at No. 38 were taken over by a wholesale grocer and sugar merchant’s company, Bristow, Warren & Harrison, who remained until 1864.

  The 1857 directory shows that Harrod also had premises at 41 St Mary at Hill, which is near the corner with Eastcheap. He is listed as ‘Harrod Charles, Colonial Produce Dealer’.

  Sometime before 1851, Charles moved his family accommodation away from the less healthy area of Cable Street and they are to be found living in Seabright Street, in leafy Bethnal Green. The electoral register shows him at No. 8, as well as later at No. 14, where he was living in 1851. The move away from the docks area would have been a benefit for the family; with the poverty, crime and filth close to the river it was a very unhealthy place to live.

  The dangers were not only aesthetic; the cholera epidemics claimed many lives in England and Wales (some 50,000 in 1849, with 14,600 in London alone). There were major cholera outbreaks, originally brought in by foreign seamen, in 1832, 1849, 1854 and 1856. Alongside the erupting epidemics of ‘King Cholera’, there was the more regular annual death toll from tuberculosis (50,000) convulsions (25,000), diarrhoea (20,000), scarlatina (12,000) and whooping cough (10,000). The epidemic in 1854 is famously remembered for the discovery of the cause of cholera by Dr John Snow, when he removed the handle from the Broad Street pump.