Nott and Wright Family History: Ch:12- Rev. John Bee Wright- newspaper articles

By 1869, Rev. John Bee Wright and his family had moved to London, settling in the newly developed suburb of Kensal Green, near Westbourne, Chelsea and Kensington, living in Appleford Road. He was described as an "Independant Minister, Kensal Road Iron Chapel" in the 1871 Census.

1886 Map of Kensal Green (London)-

Appleford Road extended from South Row, marked with X

Kensal Road (the Iron Chapel) is the main road behind Appleford Road

c.1872 Map of this same area shows Appleford Road was in a new development called Kensal New Town, yet not yet developed.

Google map of Appleford Road today, showing proximity to Westbourne Park, Notting Hill, etc.

Kensal New Town was developed in the period 1840-1859 by Mr Kinnard Jenkins on his land between the Great Western Railway and the Grand Union Canal, to provide housing for employees of the canal, the railway, the gas works, and the Kensal Green Cemetery in Harrow Road on the other side of the canal. He laid out the roads following his field boundaries- Kensall Road, West Row, Middle Row, East Row and South Row, divided the blocks up and built cottages, and named it Kensal New Town. Appleford Road, extending from South Row, must have been built at a later date, as it is not shown on the c.1872 map above. The residents were largely Irish immigrants, many employed in the laundry business, the area becoming known as the "laundry colony". It still had something of a rural character with many people keeping pigs and growing vegetables in their private gardens. A night market was held on Saturdays where Wedlake Street is now (ie. running off Kensal Road to the canal, just north of Appleford Road)- "it was notorious for rowdy scenes until an iron chapel was built on the site". This must have been John Wright's Iron Chapel which was in Kensal Street, probably on the corner with Wedlake Street. The village had six public houses.

Charles Booth in his "Life and Labour of the People in London" (First Series, Volume 1, pub 1902, pp.243,246) described Kensal New Town:
"Kensal New Town retains yet something of the appearance of a village, still able to show cottages and gardens, and gateways between houses in its streets leading back to open spaces suggestive of the paddock and pony days gone by."

This whole area of Kensingtown soon became an overcrowded slum with rampant poverty.

The Red A marks Wedlake Street adjoining Kensal Road with Appleford Road below

An iron chapel was a chapel built in those days at minimum cost, made of corrigated iron construction, lined with wood, typically measuring about 48 ' x 26', designed to seat around 200 people. It could often be disassembled and reassembled elsewhere.
John Wesley's own rule was "to preach the Gospel to the Poor, and to go not only to those who need us, but to those who need us most". Rev. William Pepperell in 1872 wrote a series of articles on Kensington Churches, published as "The Church Index". He stated figures for the rapid erection of churches in the Kensington area, including "fifteen erected and opened within the last five years. For the most part they have been erected under pressure of urgent necessity arising from the rapid and overwhelming outflow of the population towards the western suburbs. The question has been all along, how places could be erected with sufficient speed to save the communities from habitual forgetfulness of the Sabbath and public worship for the mere want of places in which to assemble. Non-conformists were well represented. However, over-eager ministers sometimes anticipated a large following where a small one was to be had."

John Bee Wright became rather infamous during the 1869-71 period for his evangelical passion and determination to enforce an ancient law that prohibited work on the Sabbath. He formed an ‘Association for the Suppression of Sunday Trading’, using an act passed in the reign of Charles II in 1676 prohibiting people to work on the “Lords-Day commonly called Sunday’, and proceeded to present summons to several working class people, tradesmen and shopkeepers he found breaking this law, the result of which led to a series of newspaper reports vilifying his actions, the most scathing of which, followed his prosecution of a crossing sweeper. The articles give us an excellent insight into the character of John Wright, and of his new-found zealous faith.

Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper

Sun Nov 28, 1869 issue 1410

PROSECUTIONS FOR SUNDAY TRADING

Yesterday Emilius Hollis was summoned to Marlebone police-court, for exercising his calling as a crossing sweeper on the Lord’s-day, in contravention of the act of Charles II., passed in the year 1676, then known as “the act for the better observance of the Lord’s day, commonly called Sunday.” The preamble of the act was read. It provides that any tradesman, workman, or other persons following their ordinary calling on the Sunday, shall be liable to a fine of 5s. for each offence. In the event of a conviction, if there are not sufficient goods for a distress to be levied upon, the offenders are to be put in the stocks for two hours.

The case was then gone into- John Bee Wright, who appeared in full clerical style, with white neckerchief and spectacles, said he was a dissenting minister, residing at 18, Appleford-road, Westbourne-park, and was secretary to a society now forming, called the Association for Enforcing the Better Observance of the Lord’s-day. These proceedings were instituted by him.

John Julian Jackson, 46, Tavistock-crescent, said he saw him sweeping a crossing at the end of Ledbury-road on Sunday morning, the 14 th. He told him if he did not leave sweeping during church hours he would summons him.

He did not desist, and he summonsed him. In reply to defendant, witness said he had gone over the crossing in preference to the mud.

The magistrate fined him 1s. and costs.

Anas Oppenheim, a tobacconist in a large way of business in Westbourne-grove, appeared to a summons. Julian Jackson said on the 14 th (Sunday) he saw defendant’s shop open, and saw customers being served. Defendant said he had never been complained of, neither did he know that he was doing wrong. He had two shops, and stood at ₤1000 rent and taxes. Fined 3s, and costs.

The following journalist’s response was damning, and expressed in glorious sarcasm:

The Examiner (London)

Sat Dec 4, 1869

A KNIGHT IN HOLY ORDERS

It is a great pity that journalism is not allowed the license of hexameters; for how otherwise are we to sing the exploits and triumph of John Bee Wright, Dissenting minister? Nothing short of the sonorous grandeur of the Homeric line may fitly celebrate the deeds of this modern hero, whose address- fancy a hero with an address:- is Appleford Road, Westbourne Park. Plain prose refuses such an office; and can only suggest that the proper method to keep in remembrance Mr Wright and his achievements would be to devote to them and him a series of frescoes in a corridor of the Houses of Parliament. They might be arranged as the Nibelungen frescoes in Munich are arranged- each group representing an episode in the history of his adventures. The first group may represent the reverend knight’s encounter with his enemy. The scene is Ledbury Road; and the time is “the Lord’s Day, commonly called Sunday”. The villainous figure of the picture appears in the shape of a crossing-sweeper. Ledbury Road is muddy; and the enemy of mankind, having entered into the heart of the wretched crossing-sweeper, has prompted him to sweep a path clean, so that pedestrians may step over with comfort and decency. This atrocious wickedness fills the soul of John Bee Wright with horror. He perceives in it the subtle work of the devil; for does it not pamper the vanity of many a young man and maiden in allowing them to save the polish of their Sunday boots? He does not immediately seize the offender and castigate him; for prudence is one of the virtues of a brave knight; and if the crossing-sweeper should be provoked into retaliating with his muddy broom, the result might be disastrous to the waistcoat of the reverend gentleman. For the time being John Bee Wright leaves the crossing sweeper in the slough of sin, and goes home to think over means of bringing him to punishment and repentance.

As the lofty tale progresses, we find ourselves introduced to a third personage, by name John Julian Jackson. The title is a proud one; although there would seem to be some doubt about the correctness of the last syllable. We presume that John Bee Wright engaged the friendly assistance of John Julian Jackson; and we learn that the latter proceeded to encounter the dangerous foe of the human race, Emilius Hollis Hollis, who swept the crossing at Ledbury Road. Again, it was “the Lord’s Day commonly called Sunday”. Was John Bee Wright hovering in the background, to watch the actions of his friend; or was he in his chapel, praying that success might attend his valorous efforts? We hope that the latter was the case; so that Mr E. M. Ward, or some other artist, may be able to represent the “Knight in Church.” However that may be, John Julian Jackson boldly approached Emilius Hollis Hollis and summoned him to desist from his wickedness in sweeping the mud from the crossing. He may have presented a crucifix, and exclaimed, “Aroint thee, fiend!”; but of that we are not informed. In any case, the summons was ineffectual. The enemy of mankind hardened the heart of Hollis Hollise. He insisted on continuing to sweep away the mud; and young people and old took advantage of his sin, and went over dry-shod. Nay, it is even recorded that John Julian Jackson himself made use of the cleaned path. Here we find an admirable illustration of the Jesuitical maxim that it is permitted to the saints to take advantage of the deeds of sinners. If the Church can benefit by the wrong-doing of a wicked man, it does good to the Church, and does little harm to the wicked man, who is devoted to perdition already. So Mr John Julian Jackson thought it right to keep his boots clean by going over the path that had been prepared by the evil one for the ensnaring of the vain and the frivolous; and probably turned and looked back upon Emilius Hollis Hollis with a glance of love and pity.

The next scene represents Marleybone Police-court, all the actors in the drama being present. The crossing-sweeper is arraigned before the majesty of the law for having committed a grievous offence on the Lord’s-Day, commonly called Sunday. Let Emilius Hollis Hollis tremble, for he is not acquainted with statute-books; and he is not aware that the two heroes who confront him have unearthed an instrument which was buried in 1676, wherewith to crush him. This deplorable crossing-sweeper, it appears, has set at nought an Act which was passed in the reign of Charles II, thereby displaying his utter lack of legal and historical knowledge. Some profound person, in that highly moral and exemplary reign, found it necessary for the humbling of pride that thoroughfares should be muddy on Sundays, and that various little articles of food, procurable on other days, should not be procurable on the Lord’s-Day, so as to impress the people with a notion of religious duties. There are some, it is to be feared, whose heart you cannot reach by any appeal; but if you cut off their Sunday beer or their Sunday chop, you touch them to the quick. In like manner, you can impress upon the careless heart of a gay and thoughtless maid-servant the difference between Sunday and a weekday, by compelling her to put her shiny slippers or shoes into the street mud on the former day. For the offence, therefore, of keeping a portion of our thoroughfares clean on Sunday, Emilius Hollis Hollis was fined one shilling and costs; and, doubtless, Mr John Bee Wright and Mr John Julian Jackson (we hope there is no mistake about the last three letters of this gentleman’s name) went home triumphant and rejoicing.

Now, if this be the law, we propose that an association be formed for the purpose of enabling people to break the law. On wet days, the streets of London get into a filthy condition; and as the municipal authorities make no effort to render them passable, that duty is left to a corps of small volunteers, who contrive to exist on chance halfpence. Because some stupendous ass of the reign of Charles II formulated a ridiculous law, it is surely hard that we should be compelled to walk through mud on Sunday. We beg to assure reverend gentlemen that wet boots have not the least beneficial effect on the religious emotions. The English Church does not recognise the doctrine of penance, and it is, consequently, useless to lay an embargo on church-going by saying that the pilgrim shall have to undergo privations on the way. Indeed, it is impossible to say what feeling of hostility to the Church may be engendered in the bosom of a submissive “slavery”, or good-humoured apprentice, by his or her having to wade through canals of liquid mud when going out of a Sunday. We cannot all drive about in cabs or carriages; and as the authorities take no heed of the condition into which a few showers of rain precipitate out thoroughfares, there is all the more reason why the voluntary corps of crossing-sweepers should be protected and encouraged. We propose, therefore, that a movement should be started to provide a sum for the payment of such fines as magistrates may be compelled, against their own judgement, to inflict. Fortunately, we can break the law cheaply; and it is better to have a few crossing-sweepers fined a shilling every week, than to have the principal thoroughfares of London rendered impassable.

This did not stop John Bee Wright in his endeavours, as indicated by several newspaper reports. However, the opposition against his endeavours grew, and became increasingly threatening:

Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper

Sun April 17, 1870 issue 1430

MARLYEBONE

THE SUNDAY TRADING PROSECUTIONS

Mr Micklemore of the firm of Lewis and Micklemore, Beaufor-buildings, Strand, attended before Mr D’Eyncourt, to apply for summonses against a person who called himself Rev. Bee Wright, he assuming that designation. He also wished for a summons against a Mr John Julian Jackson, who described himself as a gentleman; from whence he derived such a title he ought to be called upon to explain. He wished for summonses against them upon informations that they went about on the Lord’s-day, in contravention of the act of Charles II., pursuing their worldly calling as common informers, and for which they were paid. Mr D’Eyncourt inquired how he knew they were paid. Mr Micklemore said he could call five witnesses to prove it, and gave their names. They received each 10s a day of a Sunday, and 5s. for every conviction. Then, again, under the act the informer was entitled to a fourth of the penalty.

Mr Lyell (second clerk): That is not so. Mr Micklemore said he would find it was so.

Mr Lyell: They never had their portion of the fines imposed.

Mr Micklemore said he was addressing himself to the magistrate, and not his clerk.

Mr D’Eyncourt said he did not consider that the persons against whom the summons were asked for could be considered as pursuing their worldly calling.

Mr Micklemore said they were paid for becoming informers on the Lord’s-day.

Mr D’Eyncourt said that if the matter was to be so stretched a policeman would not be allowed to pursue his common calling. These parties put themselves in the position of officers to see that the act was properly carried out. He must decline to grant summonses. If they were serious in the matter they had better go to the Court of Queen’s Bench, and make an application for a mandamus to compel him to grant a summons.

However, despite opposition, Rev, Bee Wright continued to issue summons:

Lloyd’s Newspaper London

Sun May 29 1870 issue 1436

SUNDAY TRADING PROSECUTIONS

Three tradesmen who appeared before Mr D’Eyncourt, at Marylebone police-court on Wednesday, in answer to summonses issued on the information of the Rev. John Bee Wright, charging them with trading on Sunday, in contravention of the Lord’s Day act, were ordered to pay a fine of 5s and 2s costs for each offence.

Several costermongers who had been summoned under the Lord’s Day act appeared at Hammersmith police-court on Saturday. Mr Dayman said he had been looking at the act, and was of opinion that persons crying or exposing their goods for sale were liable under another clause of the act. He should therefore dismiss these summonses, and if the goods exposed for sale were seized and brought before him he should condemn the goods, and they would be forfeited.

Lloyd’s Newspaper London

Sun June 12, 1870 issue 1438

At the Hammersmith police-court, on Friday, a newsagent, named Samuel Spencer, of Gain-terrace, New-road, Hammersmith, was summoned by Mr John Bee Wright for exercising his worldly calling on the Lord’s day. The defendant complained that proceedings were not taken against the publishers of newspapers, and said he could not sell them if none were published on Sundays. He was fined 1s. and 2s. costs, as he promised to close his shop on Sundays.

The newspaper editorials continued to vilify him:

Reynold’s Newspapers London

Sun June 19, 1870 issue 1036

SCRAPS FROM THE COMIC JOURNALS

(From Punch and Judy)

“HOW DOTH THE LITTLE BUSY JOHN BEE?”

The Rev. John Bee Wright has been distinguishing himself as a fatuous bigot, by getting a lot of poor shopkeepers fined for selling their wares on “the Sabbath”, as we suppose he would call it. It is quite time the Act of Parliament, which permits narrow-minded fanatics, who are so disposed, to carry on this kind of petty persecution, was repealed, along with several other musty old enactments. Before, however, this be done, cannot someone put the Act in force against this sanctimonious person himself, and pull him up for carrying on his nasty trade of a common informer on a Sunday? It would serve the Rev. John Bee Wright.

He continued his prosecutions, even across the river at Southwark, gaining support of the ministers in that area. He was now secretary of an association for the suppression of Sunday trading:

Reynold’s Newspaper

Sun Dec 25 1870 issue 1063

MORE SABBATARIAN PERSECUTION

At Southwark police-court, Mrs Ellen Grace Cartwright, a clothier and outfitter having two large establishments at the New Cut, Lambeth, was charged, on remand, by the Rev. John Bee Wright, secretary of an association for the suppression of Sunday trading, with causing a nuisance at common law by having her shop open, and carrying on business on Sundays. The court was crowded.

Mr Horry conducted the prosecution, and Mr Lilly, instructed by Mr Edwin, appeared for the defence.

Various witnesses were called for the prosecution.

My Lilly then addressed the court on behalf of the defendant. He cited a case of a butcher in Clare-market, the only case in the book. He also alluded to the statute laws of Richard I, Charles, and James, which were un-repealed, and open to the prosecutor, and he submitted that they had no right to take proceedings at common law, compelling his client to stand at the bar of a criminal court. He asked what were the use of the statute laws if they were over-ridden by other proceedings. The learned counsel quoted several authorities to show that it was really a question for a civil court and not a question for a criminal prosecution. If the aggregate assembly caused a nuisance to the neighbourhood, the neighbours were the parties to complain.

Mr Benson said the question was, whether it was a nuisance at common law, or whether the defendant was liable to penalties for Sunday trading. If the reports that came to him from all parts were true, and he held a memorial before him signed by many clergymen in the vicinity, among whom were the Rev. Mr Sapwell, the Rev. Newman Hall, and several churchwardens and others holding high positions in the adjoining parishes, a disgraceful and intolerable nuisance existed in the New-cut on Sunday mornings. There were bootsellers and hawkers with all sorts of goods, surrounded by boys and disorderly characters using bad language, and all encouraged by this Sunday trading. It was urged by counsel that the court ought not to take cognisance of the offence to religious feeling. He did not argue with that view, as he thought the common law recognised so far the observance of Sundays as to entitle Christian congregations to the easement of unmolested and unannoyed passage to the places of worship. In his opinion there was proof of what the law called a nuisance, and he thought the defendant was contributing to it. He therefore called upon her to enter into her own recognizances to appear and plead to the indictment that may be preferred against her at the next session of the Central Criminal Court. She was accordingly committed for trial.

The issue was now so infamous that the relevant Act was now up for review in Parliament. The following case reveals that the Bill was before the House of Commons, to suppress Sunday trading:

Daily News London

Thurs April 27, 1871 issue 7798

WESTMINSTER

Mr Charles, fishmonger, of 7, Arabella-row, Pimlico, with several tobacconists, fruiterers, greengrocers, and costermongers, to the number 11, were summoned at the instance of John Bee Wright, for that they did, in contravention of the Act of Charles the Second, exercise their lawful calling on the Sabbath.

Mr John Bee Wright, the prosecutor, said he was not a witness in the cases, but merely wished to say the proceedings were taken by a respectable and worthy society, who, in their endeavours to suppress Sunday trading, were justified by the Lord’s-day Observance Act.

Mr Arnold said it appeared to him a most inopportune time to bring these proceedings forward as the Legislature were now taking measures to suppress Sunday trading, and a Bill was before the House of Commons.

Mr Wright said the Bill had been talked of some time, at least 12 months, and similar measures had been proposed seven years to the House.

Mr Arnold said he should not pass sentence upon any of the defendants summoned until he knew the result of the measure now under consideration by the Legislature. He believed it would shortly come on for discussion, and should consider it inconsistent with his duty to interfere in what was very materially associated with the measure he had referred to.

Mr Wright said his worship might recollect that the measure had been introduced into the House of Lords by Lord Chelmsford, and sent to the Lower House, but they had rejected it. This year a Bill of a similar character had been introduced in the Commons, but until that became law the Act under which these proceedings were taken was valid.

Mr Arnold did not dissent from this, but wished to know, before he decided upon an adjournment, when the question would come again before the House.

Mr Wright replied that the second reading was fixed for that evening.

Mr Arnold said he certainly should not entertain the question till the result of that reading was known, and adjourned the cases for a week.

John Bee Wright’s prosecution of a seventy year old woman who ended up in Newgate gaol for a month, really opened a hornet’s nest:

The newspaper responded:

The Graphic (London)

Sat 6 May, 1871 issue 75

We cannot congratulate Mr John Bee Wright on his successful prosecution of a poor woman for selling small wares on Sunday; nor do we feel proud of the justice that condemned the unhappy creature to a month’s imprisonment for the breach of an obsolete enactment. Such an extreme punishment for such an offence is a blot on our legislature. If the originators of that merciless prosecution were interested in injuring the cause of religion they could not have adopted a more successful means for their purpose; and it requires a great exercise of charity to believe that they were simply actuated by a desire to do public good, and not a determination to bend others to their own prejudices. If Mr John Bee Wright and his coadjutors will not be shocked at our suggestion, we should recommend their studious perusal of a certain lay sermon upon the “quality of mercy”, preached by that gifted, though unreverend moralist William Shakespeare. A well-spent Sabbath-day is a sight to gladden the hearts of all good men; but magistrates and policemen make bad missionaries.

Even a Member of Parliament felt compelled to write to the editor on the matter:

Reynold’s Newspaper

Sun May 28 1871 issue 1085

SUNDAY PERSECUTIONS

TO THE EDITOR OF REYNOLD”S NEWSPAPER

Sir, - The Rev. John Bee Wright, appears to be of those who “Do good by stealth, and blush to find it fame!” Mrs McLoughlin, the poor woman whose case I mentioned lately in the House of Commons, has just received from the holy man the following letter:-

“Mrs McLoughlin- Madam- I see exhibited in your window a number of summonses, and a paper relating to them. I beg to say that these are calculated to produce a breach of the peace, and unless you have them removed at once I shall think it my duty to ask for a summons against you to show cause why you keep them there.

Yours faithfully,

J.B. Wright”

A clergyman of the neighbourhood, a few days ago, illustrated the purity of his Protestant sentiments by addressing Mrs McLoughlin, so far as her recollection goes, in the following terms:- “Mrs McLoughlin, I’m ashamed of an old woman like you to put such an infidel paper in your window” (it was a petition to parliament for repeal of Charles II’s Act, beginning with the statement that every man should be the sole judge of his duties as to the observance of Sunday). “A man the sole judge indeed! What right has any man to be the judge? Haven’t we got the Bible? You and your Roman Catholic lot will find out at the last day.”

This poor woman is very timid and nervous, and nearly seventy years old. Fitly to characterise such proceedings I feel to be hopelessly beyond my power,

Yours faithfully,

P.A. Taylor (member of Parliament)

Aubrey House

Nottinghill, May 20

Anger was turning into violence against John Bee Wright:

Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper

Sun May 28,1871, issue 1488

HAMMERSMITH

ASSAULTING THE REV. BEE WRIGHT

Robert Bigwood, a plasterer, was charged with assaulting the Rev. John Bee Wright, a Dissenting minister, residing at 19, Appleford-road Kensal New-town.-

The complainant said that on Sunday last his daughter called him to the front door as a person wanted to speak to him. He saw the prisoner, who stepped into the passage and struck him on the face, causing his nose to bleed. Mr Ingham inquired the cause for the assault upon him.- The witness said that for several Sundays an attempt had been made to create a disturbance at his house. He did not know the prisoner, but he believed that he had been incited to create a disturbance. He added that the infliction of a fine would not put a stop to the annoyance, because if one were to be imposed it would be paid by the prisoner’s friends.- In reply to the charge, the prisoner said that his object in going to the complainants house was to ask him a question. He was unable to speak at the moment, as he had an impediment in his speech. The complainant then pushed him, and he put up his hand to prevent him.-Mr Ingham said that if the assault had been committed in pursuance of a conspiracy he should have sent him to prison, but as there was no evidence of it he should fine him.-The prisoner was then fined 20s with the alternative of 14 days imprisonment.

SUNDAY TRADING- Mr Charles Nunn, a tobacconist, of the Ledbury-road, Bayswater, who had been summoned several times and fined for Sunday trading, again appeared to answer another summons at the instance of the Rev. Bee Wright.- Mr Jackson proved the case, and in reply to the charge, the defendant said he could not deny it.- Mr Ingham fined him 5s. and 2s costs.

There were other summonses, but they were adjourned as 5 o’clock had arrived, and the court closed.

John Bee Wright was now subject to constant abuse and threats:

Reynolds’ Newspaper

Sun June 18, 1871 issue 1088

THE REVEREND BEE WRIGHT AND HIS SECRETARY

At Hammersmith Police-court, Mr Charles Ayres, of Market-terrace, Bradmore, Hammersmith, appeared to answer a summons for using abusive and insulting language to the Rev, John Bee Wright, the secretary to the Association for the Suppression of Sunday Trading. The complainant said that on 5 th instant., he was at the court conducting prosecutions. On getting outside he saw the defendant, who said “there he is; there is Bee Wright.” A number of persons were present. Witness took no notice, and proceeded on his way. The defendant followed, calling out that he was a common informer and an unmitigated scoundrel. Witness went into a shop for protection. It was not the first time the defendant had insulted him. Cross-examined, the witness said he preached in an iron chapel at Kensal-green, and did not belong to any denomination. A sum of ₤25 was borrowed upon the chapel. He was a shoemaker 25 years ago. Mr John Julian Jackson gave confirmatory evidence. He added that the defendant called to the mob, “Now, boys, come on at them.” The defendant was proceeding to cross-examine Mr Jackson, whom he described as a lime merchant, as to whether he saw him drunk in Brighton in 1870, when Mr Ingham interposed, and said that, assuming Mr Jackson was drunk at that time, he might have since become a reformed character. This remark elicited loud laughter in court, but it was quickly suppressed, and one man was removed. The defendant then said that he came to the court by accident, and, wishing to see Mr Jackson (sic. Mr Wright?), he followed him. He did not deny calling him a common informer. He said he had twice had the honour of being a special constable, and also belonged to the South Middlesex Volunteer Corps. He made that statement to show that he was not a man who would be likely to commit a breach of the peace. He said he had forgotten to mention that he told Mr Jackson that Mr Peter Taylor, the member of parliament, would settle his business, and he replied that Mr Taylor was worse than he was. Lord Ranelagh, the commander of the South Middlesex Volunteer Corps, said that he was glad to have the opportunity of saying a word on behalf of the defendant. For 12 years he had known the latter, who was one of his sergeants, and he always found him to be a good man. Mr Ingham said he had no doubt that the defendant was a man of generous impulses, but he must try to repress those feelings. He believed the words were used, and fined the defendant 10s, and 2s costs. The money was immediately paid.

Mr Ingham also disposed of several cases at the instance of the Reverend Bee Wright, for Sunday trading.

David William Lawrence, a tobacconist, and newsagent, of Church-street, Kensington, was brought up on a warrant, in default of appearing to a summons, when he state that he was compelled to serve on a Sunday. He also said that he should be very glad to close his shop if all others were closed. His customers would have their Sunday papers, and if he did not serve them, other shopkeepers would. Mr Ingham said that so long as the Act remained in the statute-book, he felt bound to enforce it. He fined him 5s and 4s costs.

Catherine Crawley was also brought up on a warrant. The Rev. Mr Wright said he saw the prisoner near his houses selling water-cresses. He further said that if the prisoner would keep away, as she came from St Giles’s he would return all money which she had been called upon to pay. The prisoner said she had a sick husband, and she sold a few water-cresses to keep her family. The Rev. Mr Wright told her that if she were not a Roman Catholic he would not have summoned her so often. The Rev. Mr Wright said he would be satisfied with a small fine. Mr Ingham fined the defendant 1s and 4s costs. The decision was received with suppressed hisses. Several shopkeepers were fined the full penalty of 5s and costs.

At the Marlborough-street Police-court, John Jackson, the secretary of the Rev. Bee Wright. Was charged with being drunk and incapable.

Police-constable Reuben Percival stated that on the previous night he saw the defendant leaning against the railings in Park-lane in a very drunken state- so drunk, indeed, that he could hardly stand. The defendant made an attempt to get into an omnibus, but fell in the road, and nearly run over by a cab. He then picked up the defendant, and took him to the station.

The secretary said he was much obliged to the constable, but he was quite sober. He was labouring under palpitations of the heart, caused by running after the omnibus and fell.

Mr Knox said the constable stated that the defendant was very drunk, and he (defendant) said he was sober, but suffering from palpitations of the heart.

The defendant replied all he wanted to do was to call attention to how soon he got sober.

Mr Knox asked the defendant whether he remembered how much beer and gin he had taken.

The defendant said he had only taken two glasses of whisky.

Inspector Skates stated he was at the station when defendant was brought in, and he was unmistakably drunk, and had to be supported by two constables to the cells.

Mr Knox said he had no doubt the defendant was excessively drunk, and he would have to pay the usual drunkard’s fine- namely 5s.

As these threats were becoming constant, and according to John, were made against his life and family’s well-being, he decided to find new pastures, and sailed for America the following month of July. The decision taken to emigrate appears to have happened very quickly, and he left without his family who followed him in a few months time, having sorted out their affairs. It would seem to indicate that he was in fear of his life. According to his obituary: "A conclave of these men (viz. whiskey sellers) swore never to rest until he should be forever silenced. Day and night they tracked him and after barely escaping their vengeance, he fled to America in July 1871." This was only a month following the attacks on John Wright described in the newspaper article above dated 18 June.

Although the shipping records have been found for his family, no shipping record has yet been found for John Bee Wright- maybe he travelled incognito to prevent his enemies finding him.

EMIGRATION TO NEW YORK STATE

In July in the year 1871, John emigrated to New York, possibly under an assumed name, as there are no shipping records yet found.

John’s wife Martha and daughters Plessie (given as Bessie) and Ellen (given as Nelly), arrived at the Port of New York 13 November 1871 on the 3 masted (plus one funnel) ship the City of Washington, having embarked from Liverpool.

City of Washington

Shipping record- Nos. 227/8/9- Martha Wright 50, Bessy (Plessy) 14, Nelly 11

Their son John William (a printer) and his wife Hannah Lane (having recently married on 1 December 1871 at Hannah's parish church, St Saviours Parish of Paddington- daughter of John Lane, gamekeeper) arrived in New York on 2 January 1872 on the Minnesota, also embarking from Liverpool.

Why John and Martha's daughter Martha Jane and her husband Philip Nott decided not to follow them to America, choosing Australia as their future home, has not been discovered. They emigrated to Brisbane, leaving England in October 1872.

The Wright family settled in the beautiful area of Erie Parish, a few miles west of New York City (and near Niagara Falls), where Rev John Bee Wright was appointed minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

Their obituaries appeared in the 1892 and 1899 “Official minutes of the … Session of the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church” published by the Secretaries (now held by the New York Public Library). These will be explored in the next chapter.

The 1880 US Census has John and Martha Wright living in Erie Parish (ie Hamburgh), John’s occupation: ME Minister.

Daughter Plessy had married an Edward Carpp, a farmer at Hamburgh. He was born in USA, but his parents came from Bavaria and Baden-Wurttenberg in Germany and settled in Michigan. After Edward's premature death on 24 October 1883, aged 26, Plessie remarried to her brother-in-law Allen K. Hoag in Hamburg between 1910 and late 1911 (Hoag born in New York State in 1856/1857), a stationery store keeper at the time.
Allen K Hoag was firstly married to Plessie's sister Ellen/Nellie in c.1879 and they had a daughter Mattie L. Hoag born in 1880 who became a school teacher by 1905. After Nellie's death, Plessie was living with her brother-in-law Allen, as his housekeeper in the 1910 US Census, both aged 53. They were living next to a Joseph Hoag, aged 58 and his family in East Hamburg- a brother perhaps. Plessie and Allen married before October 1911 as the following newspaper article names her as Plessie C. Hoag:

Buffalo NY Courier 1911

Son John William Wright was living at Buffalo New York, with his wife Hannah, son William (b.1874 NY) and daughter Hannah (b.1882 NY), and was a printer by trade. He owned his house, unmortgaged, in 1900.

1880 Census- New York State

Notably a number of other families by the name of Wright, all born in England, were also living at Buffalo, viz.

Faithful Wright, 51, wife Ellen, 50, both born England, their eldest son Henry, 25 a machinist, and their youngest Robert aged 5 all born England, which means they emigrated after 1875.

Also, a Thomas Wright, 31, blacksmith, wife Agnes, born England, eldest child of 9 yrs born NY, so emigrated before 1871; He may have been the eldest son of Faithful Wright.

And John Wright 30, wife Jane, 28, born England, eldest son William 4 yrs, born NY, so emigrated at least by 1876. He was probably the brother of Thomas Wright, above.

All of their sons were named similarly viz. Henry, William, John, Thomas, George, Robert. Ellen, Elizabeth, Nellie.

Whether they were related to John Bee Wright, is unknown, but very possible, given the similarity of names.

Newspaper articles:
There are a number of short articles in two local newspapers on various members of the family: Hamburg NY Erie County Independent, and the Buffalo NY Courier. (New York Public Library- Fultonhistory.com )
Many of the articles just reveal that daughter Nellie/Mrs A.K. Hoag was visiting her family, or her sister Plessie/Mrs E.Carpp was visiting Nellie, etc.

Examples:

Hamburg NY Erie County Independent 1875-79

Buffalo NY Courier 1892a- pdf0579

25 April 2013

Ch:12- Rev. John Bee Wright- newspaper articles