Grimwades biography on page 662 of George Smith is misleading as the first seven lines refer to another George Smith entirely separate to the Huggin Alley George.
George Smith (One and a Half)'s master was William Aldridge and his sole mark was at Red Cross Street. This mark was in an oval punch whereas all the subsequent marks at Huggin Alley were rectangular. More significantly, the Smallworkers Register shows all the marks at Huggin Alley in a totally separate block - even though there is ample room to continue the Red Cross entry - almost certainly indicating that they were started as a separate registration for a new person.
George Smith II , the son of George Smith of Witney, Oxfordshire, yeoman, was actually apprenticed to John Eaton, Citizen and Goldsmith of London, on 2nd August 1753 for seven years and a premium of £20 was paid. (Goldsmiths Hall Apprentice Book 7, Page198). In the margin was written the information that George was turned over on the same day to Samuel Eaton, Leather Seller, with the premium of £20 going to him. George was free of the Goldsmiths in 1761.
Samuel Eaton died in 1767, leaving “to George Smith my late apprentice if he marries my niece Hannah Wood all my working Tools Patterns and Fixtures and the Lease of my House…… " -
George then promptly married Hannah, whose mother was born Martha Eaton.
SMITH, George II (Grimwade p.662, 767, 390)
Moderators: MCB, buckler, silverly
Re: SMITH, George II (Grimwade p.662, 767, 390)
Just want to convey my appreciation of these listings, Mr. Bucklecollector! ;)
Re: SMITH, George II (Grimwade p.662, 767, 390)
SILVER STUDIES, The Journal of the Silver Society , No 26 [2010] was published in late March 2011 . Pages 60 -68 contains an account of the life of George Smith and the bucklemaking trade of his time. And pictures of buckles. Author - Clive Taylor aka Buckler.
Available from the Silver Society, Box 246, 2 Lansdowne Row , London W1J 6HL.
Did George fake his wedding date ?
The marriage of George Smith and Hannah Wood is recorded in the Marriage Register of St Michael, Wood Street as 12th October 1767
Georges inheritance of Samuel Eatons business if he married Hannah Wood, Eaton's niece was not given in the will as conditional as to date. A very serious fault in the drafting of the will, as it could create an indefinite trust, only ending when either of the two parties died, or got married. All other beneficiaries would have to wait, perhaps years . This I believe would have been unacceptable in law - it certainly would be under modern law . Thus marriage before Samuel's death in late October would have been infinitely preferable to marriage after it.
But why did George leave it so late ? If he knew of the bequest in the will, which was made in October 1765, he had had two years in which to act - and long engagements were not common in the 18th century . But he did nothing until a few days before Samuel's death - which the newspapers reported as "sudden" . So not made in imminent expectation of his demise.
So why the very apposite timing .
Curiously the Register entry, No 95 is dated 12 OCTOBER, but follows No 94, which is dated 18 OCTOBER. i.e 6 days later .As each entry had to be signed on the day by both parties to the wedding and two witnesses this is unlikely to be a matter of a clerk copying his notes up in the wrong order. As an ex accountant and auditor my naturally suspicious mind was intrigued by this .
When were the banns read ?
No banns. Married by licence .
When was the licence issued ?
10 NOVEMBER 1767 !
(Both Allegation and Bond were dated 10th November 1767 - the original licence has not survived)
So it looks as though George probably found out about his bequest soon after Samuel's death, got together with Hannah and they both quickly got a licence and got married on the 12th NOVEMBER. The other two witnesses were Peter Eaton (who was another uncle of Hannah's) and Charles Holliday (almost certainly a friend of George's from Witney ) . Either no-one noticed a wrong date - unlikely - or the priest was persuaded to back date the entry.
So far we are in well documented areas - there is little doubt of the facts given above. And this is as far, in a respected journal like the Silver Society , that one can go.
But on the Internet one can speculate further.
Was George involved in murder ?
The data :-
There was a Thomas Eaton given by Heal as Spoonmaker in Wood Street in 1765.
He was replaced in the Land Tax Assessment of St Michael ,Wood Street of 1767/68 by Widow Eaton.
She died in July 1768. Thomas probably died in 1766.
On 22nd July 1766 John Taylor, another silver bucklemaker in Huggin Lane (directly opposite to Samuel Eaton) made his will, witnessed only by George Smith. He died a few days later " of a mortification of his bowels" . He was succeeded by first his widow then his son.
John Eaton, Samuel's Eaton's nephew, died in early October 1767 . He lived in Gutter Lane which ajoins Huggin Lane. He was only 43 years old.
His household goods stock etc and lease were sold in November 1767, which seems odd as his widow was his sole beneficiary and you would expect her to want the household furniture at least ! However in February 1768 she was granted by Goldsmiths Company one of the rooms at the Goldsmiths Almshouse as she was destitute. It would appear that Johns's creditors took all of John's property, leaving her nothing.
Samuel Eaton died in late October 1767. Despite his age newspaper reports indicate that the death was both sudden and unexpected.
There are no indications of an abnormal number of deaths in the Parish registers of the period 1766 - 1767 which would indicate an epidemic. Records of the Coroners Enquiries of the period have not survived .
Three Eaton silversmiths and a Taylor silversmith all dead within a year. Seemed to be open season. Three known to be connected to George Smith.
No comment but I think there was something rather odd going on !
Available from the Silver Society, Box 246, 2 Lansdowne Row , London W1J 6HL.
Did George fake his wedding date ?
The marriage of George Smith and Hannah Wood is recorded in the Marriage Register of St Michael, Wood Street as 12th October 1767
Georges inheritance of Samuel Eatons business if he married Hannah Wood, Eaton's niece was not given in the will as conditional as to date. A very serious fault in the drafting of the will, as it could create an indefinite trust, only ending when either of the two parties died, or got married. All other beneficiaries would have to wait, perhaps years . This I believe would have been unacceptable in law - it certainly would be under modern law . Thus marriage before Samuel's death in late October would have been infinitely preferable to marriage after it.
But why did George leave it so late ? If he knew of the bequest in the will, which was made in October 1765, he had had two years in which to act - and long engagements were not common in the 18th century . But he did nothing until a few days before Samuel's death - which the newspapers reported as "sudden" . So not made in imminent expectation of his demise.
So why the very apposite timing .
Curiously the Register entry, No 95 is dated 12 OCTOBER, but follows No 94, which is dated 18 OCTOBER. i.e 6 days later .As each entry had to be signed on the day by both parties to the wedding and two witnesses this is unlikely to be a matter of a clerk copying his notes up in the wrong order. As an ex accountant and auditor my naturally suspicious mind was intrigued by this .
When were the banns read ?
No banns. Married by licence .
When was the licence issued ?
10 NOVEMBER 1767 !
(Both Allegation and Bond were dated 10th November 1767 - the original licence has not survived)
So it looks as though George probably found out about his bequest soon after Samuel's death, got together with Hannah and they both quickly got a licence and got married on the 12th NOVEMBER. The other two witnesses were Peter Eaton (who was another uncle of Hannah's) and Charles Holliday (almost certainly a friend of George's from Witney ) . Either no-one noticed a wrong date - unlikely - or the priest was persuaded to back date the entry.
So far we are in well documented areas - there is little doubt of the facts given above. And this is as far, in a respected journal like the Silver Society , that one can go.
But on the Internet one can speculate further.
Was George involved in murder ?
The data :-
There was a Thomas Eaton given by Heal as Spoonmaker in Wood Street in 1765.
He was replaced in the Land Tax Assessment of St Michael ,Wood Street of 1767/68 by Widow Eaton.
She died in July 1768. Thomas probably died in 1766.
On 22nd July 1766 John Taylor, another silver bucklemaker in Huggin Lane (directly opposite to Samuel Eaton) made his will, witnessed only by George Smith. He died a few days later " of a mortification of his bowels" . He was succeeded by first his widow then his son.
John Eaton, Samuel's Eaton's nephew, died in early October 1767 . He lived in Gutter Lane which ajoins Huggin Lane. He was only 43 years old.
His household goods stock etc and lease were sold in November 1767, which seems odd as his widow was his sole beneficiary and you would expect her to want the household furniture at least ! However in February 1768 she was granted by Goldsmiths Company one of the rooms at the Goldsmiths Almshouse as she was destitute. It would appear that Johns's creditors took all of John's property, leaving her nothing.
Samuel Eaton died in late October 1767. Despite his age newspaper reports indicate that the death was both sudden and unexpected.
There are no indications of an abnormal number of deaths in the Parish registers of the period 1766 - 1767 which would indicate an epidemic. Records of the Coroners Enquiries of the period have not survived .
Three Eaton silversmiths and a Taylor silversmith all dead within a year. Seemed to be open season. Three known to be connected to George Smith.
No comment but I think there was something rather odd going on !
Re: SMITH, George II (Grimwade p.662, 767, 390)
Hello Clive
Thanks for posting your account of George Smith for the Forum. I hope you will be interested in the following:
Grimwade’s biography of George Smith of Huggin Lane mentions a mark registered on 21st November 1767. By all accounts this seems to have been this particular George Smith’s first mark. If Samuel Eaton died at the end of October why did George, having fulfilled the known condition of Samuel’s Will by marrying Hannah on 12th October, wait another three weeks after the death before registering that mark? The logical explanation seems to be that he only registered the mark at that time because he hadn’t needed one before Samuel’s death and, The City being the place it was, too many people would know he couldn’t legitimately claim entitlement to Samuel’s business until after the 12th November bearing out dismissal of 12th October as the date of marriage.
The record of Samuel Eaton’s burial at St Michael in Wood Street shows it occurred on 8th November 1767 in the middle “isle” (aisle) of the church. If George Smith and Hannah Wood were married at the same church 4 days later on 12th November 1767 they would presumably have walked right over where poor Samuel had just been laid to rest. If true one might say this shows a lack of human respect .
Incidentally Grimwade’s biography for Samuel Eaton shows him entering a 9th mark at Goldsmith’s Hall on 16th March 1768. How did Samuel manage that?
The 1773 Parliamentary Report contains an entry in the Broken Plate detail for the year to May 1772 of a George Smith of “Higan” Lane having sent 60lbs weight of substandard silverware to assay. Could he possibly be the same George Smith one asks?
Regards
Mike
Thanks for posting your account of George Smith for the Forum. I hope you will be interested in the following:
Grimwade’s biography of George Smith of Huggin Lane mentions a mark registered on 21st November 1767. By all accounts this seems to have been this particular George Smith’s first mark. If Samuel Eaton died at the end of October why did George, having fulfilled the known condition of Samuel’s Will by marrying Hannah on 12th October, wait another three weeks after the death before registering that mark? The logical explanation seems to be that he only registered the mark at that time because he hadn’t needed one before Samuel’s death and, The City being the place it was, too many people would know he couldn’t legitimately claim entitlement to Samuel’s business until after the 12th November bearing out dismissal of 12th October as the date of marriage.
The record of Samuel Eaton’s burial at St Michael in Wood Street shows it occurred on 8th November 1767 in the middle “isle” (aisle) of the church. If George Smith and Hannah Wood were married at the same church 4 days later on 12th November 1767 they would presumably have walked right over where poor Samuel had just been laid to rest. If true one might say this shows a lack of human respect .
Incidentally Grimwade’s biography for Samuel Eaton shows him entering a 9th mark at Goldsmith’s Hall on 16th March 1768. How did Samuel manage that?
The 1773 Parliamentary Report contains an entry in the Broken Plate detail for the year to May 1772 of a George Smith of “Higan” Lane having sent 60lbs weight of substandard silverware to assay. Could he possibly be the same George Smith one asks?
Regards
Mike
Re: SMITH, George II (Grimwade p.662, 767, 390)
Thanks for the comments .
The matter of Samuel Eatons last mark worried me as well !
However an examination of the Smallworkers Register at Goldsmiths Hall revealed that the 16th March mark was actually 1763, Grimwade having either read it as 1768 , or misread his notes.
see http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... 74&t=23279" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Grimwade gives the date of registration of the first George Smith of Huggin Lane as 21st November which as you say fits nicely.
I am certain that George Smith of Higan Lane is our man .
The matter of Samuel Eatons last mark worried me as well !
However an examination of the Smallworkers Register at Goldsmiths Hall revealed that the 16th March mark was actually 1763, Grimwade having either read it as 1768 , or misread his notes.
see http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... 74&t=23279" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Grimwade gives the date of registration of the first George Smith of Huggin Lane as 21st November which as you say fits nicely.
I am certain that George Smith of Higan Lane is our man .