Thomas Boddington's accusations against his wife

Dated 26 Apr 1880, this comes from Thomas Boddington's "Answer" to his wife's petition for their marriage to be annulled, filed on 10 March 1880. Taken at face value,it sheds a light on the her mental state.

Gunnersbury Lodge - "a Hell" according to Emily Boddington

Ordnance Survey 25" to one mile, 1896. Courtesy National Library of Scotland

"Thomas Boddington ... says ... that he has reasonable grounds ... for refusing to permit the Petitioner to cohabit with him."

• She is "of a very governable nature".
• From about 20 Dec 1879 to about Feb 1880 she has "on many occasions used violent, threatening and abuse language" towards him.
• She has "frequently thrown herself into paroxysms of rage at night, and other times, greatly alarming [him] and his servants for his safety"
• She has insisted on "having the entire control of the house and servants, putting [him] aside"
• She "required the butler, who had been twenty years in the family, should be immediately dismissed".
• She has "refused to dine in the same room with [him]"
• She has "brought relatives of her own to [his] house, without his knowledge or authority, to remain with her"
• She has "thrown glasses, china and other articles about the rooms and broken the furniture and glass"
• She has called him "a demon"
• She has called "the place where he resided, a Hell"
• She has said "she would kill herself ... if she met with with determined opposition"
• She has said that "death on the gallows was sweet if the result of satisfied revenge"
• That he "does not consider his life safe with [her]"
• On or about 1 Dec 1879, at Gunnersbury Lodge, she locked him in a room and for some hours violently prevented him from leaving it.
• On or about 15 Dec 1879, at Gunnersbury Lodge, she "violently endeavoured" to prevent him from leaving the room and subsequently hid the blankets and other bedding in order to prevent him going to bed.
• On the same night, she "seized him violently" and prevented him from leaving the room and "kept assaulting him throughout the night, so as to prevent him from sleeping."

Emily Boddington and 'Stanbrook House'

The original 'Stanbrook House' was in the parish of Powick, near Worcester. The St James's Chronicle of Tuesday 24 December 1811 reported "On Sunday last a fire broke out at Stanbrook House, in the parish of Powick, belonging to Dr. Briggs. The house had been under repair and improvement, and was nearly ready for the occupation of the family. The accident is attributed to the neglect of workmen employed in the house."

In 1835, with the encouragement of Bernard Short of Little Malvern, later the abbey chaplain, a community of English Benedictine nuns bought Stanbrook Hall at Callow End, Powick. This was a country mansion, built in 1755 by Richard Casean, of Worcester. The nuns had an abbey building built which was ready in 1838. It was named Stanbrook Abbey and the nuns remained there until 2009.

As a Roman Catholic, Emily would have been well aware of Stanbrook Abbey, but it is just possible that she was also aware of 'Stanbrook House', in Atlingworth Street, Brighton.

'Stanbrook House' in Cathedral Road, Cardiff, first appears in the press in the South Wales Daily News on Tuesday 22 September 1891. This is an advertisement for a "thorough Plain Cook as General Servant; also general to take housemaid's duties". Whether or not the post was filled, another advertisement for a "thorough Plain Cook; must assist in general housework" appeared in the South Wales Echo on Tuesday 8 December 1891.

The following day, 8 December 1891, the South Wales Echo carried an advertisement which made clear the nature of 'Stanbrook House':

STANBROOK HOUSE,

CATHEDRAL ROAD, CARDIFF.

TRAINED NURSES' INSTITUTE AND PRIVATE HOME FOR PAYING PATIENTS.

HOSPITAL TRAINED NURSES SUPPLIED

To private families for all classes of case, at shortest possible notice, on application to the Matron.

Telegraphic address—"HUMANITY, CARDIFF." 

The same advertisement appeared roughly on a weekly basis until October 1892. On Friday 14 October 1892 the South Wales Daily News had news of a residential vacancy: 

"There is a Vacancy as Boarder for an Invalid or Elderly Lady requiring special care and attention for permanency or otherwise; every home comfort.—Stanbrook House, Cathedral-road, Cardiff"

It last appeared on 23 November 1892 and then the usual advertisement resumed.

The beginning of the end was reported in the South Wales Echo on Tuesday 9 May 1893:

Notification of infectious Diseases.

CHARGES AGAINST CARDIFF NURSES.

At the Cardiff Borough Police-court this afternoon, the Stipendiary Magistrate (Mr T. W. Lewis, Dr. Paine, Mr Spencer, and Mr R. Bird on the bench) two cases were heard having reference to the measures taken by the corporation for preventing the spread of contagious diseases.

In the first case Miss Annie Elliott, a nurse at the Nursing Institution, Stanbrook House, Cathedral-road, Cardiff, was summoned for conveying an infectious case in a public vehicle without giving due notice to the driver, while in the second case Mrs Emily Boddington, the lady superintendent of the institution, was charged with refusing to give up to the sanitary authorities certain infected clothing.

Mr F. C. Lloyd, deputy town clerk, appeared for the prosecution. He said the summons against Miss Elliott was taken under the 126th section or the Public Health Act, charging her with exposing a child suffering from a dangerous infectious disease in a public conveyance without notice to the driver.

The section in question provided that "any person who while suffering from any dangerous or infectious disease, wilfully exposes himself without proper precautions against the spreading of the said disease in any street, public place, house, shop, or conveyance, or enters any public conveyance without previously notifying to the owner or driver that he is so suffering; or being in charge of such person who shall expose such sufferer." 

The defendant was alleged to have been in charge of the person suffering. The infectious disease in question was diphtheria, which was one of a number of infectious diseases scheduled in the Act. It was of a somewhat dangerous character, the proportion of deaths of persons attacked being even as great as 30 per cent. The most important preventative measures are isolation and disinfection.

In this case the person attacked was a child who, while in a highly infectious condition, was removed in a public conveyance without the slightest intimation that she was infectious. The cabman when he was hired was told that he was required to fetch a gentleman, whereas it was a child who was removed. The cab had not been disinfected for a week after by reason of no notice having been given to the driver.

The child was not taken to an isolation hospital, but to a nursing home, where persons were received suffering from all the diseases.

The defendant was not an ignorant person—she was a trained nurse, and therefore should understand the danger to which she was exposing persons who were subsequently using the cab.

Wm. Henry Matthews, of Ryder-street, said he was the father of the child Beatrice Matthews, who was four years of age. On the 17th April,  while suffering from diphtheria, she was conveyed from Green-street to Stanbrook House, Cathedral-road, in a cab by the defendant. He did not tell the defendant that the child was suffering from diphtheria, but from the general tone of the con-versation he led her to believe that the case was one of an infectious character.

The Stipendiary: Did anyone tell Miss Elliott the case was one of diphtheria?

Witness: I have no doubt in my own mind that she knew it was an infectious case.

Samuel Davies, a foreman driver to Mr T. H. Webb, cab proprietor, Cathedral-road, deposed to driving the child in charge of the defendant from Queen-street to the Cathedral. No intimation whatever was conveyed to him that the child was suffering from a contagious disease.

Mr Edward Walford, medical officer of health for the borough of Cardiff, stated that diphtheria was a dangerous infectious disease.

The Stipendiary: If any person suffering from diphtheria were driven in a cab is the next person using the cab liable to become infected?

Dr. Walford: Yes I think so.

Mr Edward S. Smith, surgeon, practising in Cardiff, deposed to attending the child Beatrice Matthews, who was suffering from diphtheria.

The Stipendiary (to defendant): The case has been clearly proved against you. I take it you do not deny the facts of the case?

Defendant: I did not know it was against the law. Had it been scarlet fever I should have given notice, but being diphtheria I did not think it was necessary to mention it.

A fine of £5 and costs was inflicted, or in default defendant was ordered to prison for one month with hard labour.

A similar summons had been issued against Mrs Emily Boddington, the lady superintendent of Stanbrook House Nursing Institution, but on the application of Mr Lloyd this was withdrawn, and she was proceeded against for refusing to give up the clothing of the sick child to the sanitary authorities.

In answer to the bench, Mrs Boddington admitted the charge, but said the articles were disinfected in the house, where they had every possible convenience for doing so.

Mr Lloyd said this was a charge which he must press. It was taken out under the Infectious Diseases Prevention Act, 1890, which had been adopted by the Cardiff Urban Sanitary Authority. By section 6 it was enacted that any local authority, or the medical officer of health for such authority, might, by giving notice in writing, require the owner of any bedding, clothing, or other articles which had been exposed to an infection or any infectious disease to cause the same to be delivered over to the officer of the authority for removal for the purpose of disinfection and any person who failed to comply with the requirement should be liable to a penalty not exceeding £10.

George Thomas, inspector of nuisances to the Cardiff Urban Sanitary Authority, stated that, acting under instructions from the medical officer of health, he proceeded to the Nursing Institution, Cathedral-road, on the 13th April, and asked for the clothing of the child, Beatrice Matthews. Defendant refused to give the articles up. She said she would not allow anything to be taken out of the house, urging that they were quite capable of disinfecting their own things.

The facts of the case were not denied, defendant being fined £5 and costs.

Mrs Boddington and the Cardiff Guardians, 1899

Western Mail - Monday 27 February 1899

MRS. BODDINGTON'S CASE

THE COMPLAINT AGAINST AGAINST A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST

The workhouse visiting committee in their report submitted to the Cardiff. Guardians on Saturday intimated that a letter had been received from Mrs. Boddington, an inmate, formerly a Roman Catholic, complaining of the conduct of Father Wilfrid Sumner.

The master having stated that Mrs. Boddington did not wish to appear before the committee, and Father Brady having made a statement, the committee believed that Father Sumner acted the part of a Christian gentleman, and that he said nothing which called for notice. That much has already been reported.

The Clerk now read a further letter from Mrs. Boddington, in which she wrote:-

Union Workhouse Hospital, Cardiff.

February 23, 1899

Sir, As I see that a report of a meeting of the Cardiff Guardians is published in the Western Mail of yesterday's date mentioning my name, and containing statements concerning me which are absolutely false, I will ask you to be good enough to send to the same journal for publication my communication to the guardians of February 1 inst., which is there referred to as a 'long, rambling letter,' together with this. It is absolutely false that Father Sumner had ever known me at any previous period, or that I had ever spoken to him before I spoke to him in the ward here. It is also absolutely false that I have written an apology to Father Sumner. If Father Sumner asserts that I have written him an apology, let him produce it. My communication to the guardians of the 1st inst. is itself a direct refutation of the statements contained in the Western Mail report, and explains my reason for writing it. Father Sumner substantially made a charge against a me, in the presence of others, which has already been broadly circulated by a large section of the Catholic clergy, to the effect that I am falsely representing my position. Father Brady's statements as reported in the Western Mail, are, I venture to submit, sufficient evidence of the fact ,which I affirm, that the Roman Catholic clergy for years past have been busy in  systematically circulating falsehoods concerning me...

...The Chairman (Mr. O. H. Jones) here intervened, and said the letter was getting libellous.

Several Guardians: We have heard enough.

Mr. Enoch: Plenty

Father Brady: I have the authority, if necessary.

Mr. F. J. Beavan said the whole matter was in a nutshell. Father Sumner went to the woman's bedside at her own request, as she wanted him to take a message or do something; and he said he could not speak to her unless the card on which her religion was entered was altered.

They thought that was very fair and reasonable on the part of Father Sumner. It was a rule that Roman Catholic p riests should not visit Protestants, and vice versa. That being the case, he behaved exactly as any Christian minister would under the circumstances. He observed the rule to the very letter.

The Chairman: Another letter has been handed to me in which practically she does apologise. We have nothing to do with what has appeared in the press.

Clerk: Had I better write and reply that we are not respo sible for what appears in the press?

The Chairman: Certainly.

The matter then dropped.

The rest of Mrs. Boddington's. letter was handed to the press. It was all in the same strain. She said she had formally withdrawn her "obedience" from Rome, and had communicated the fact of her 'secession" to Bishop Hedley.

 

South Wales Echo - Saturday 15 April 1899

VOLUMINOUS LETTERS TO CARDIFF GUARDIANS.

Mrs Boddington figured once more in the proceedings of Cardiff Guardians this morning, Mr O. H. Jones presiding.

The item on the agenda read:—" Further letter from Mrs Boddington as to her treatment by the medical officer of the Workhouse."

The Clerk stated that there were two letters, one of 27 folios and the other of 30. (Laughter.) The board shrank from laying themselves open to the threatened infliction, and on the motion of the Chairman the letters were referred to the Workhouse Visiting Committee. 

 

South Wales Daily News - Wednesday 3 May 1899

CARDIFF WORKHOUSE.

A CHARGE OF INHUMANITY.

The Visiting Committee of the Cardiff Guardians have appointed a sub-committee of ladies to hold an inquiry into charges made by Mrs Boddington as to the bad treatment received by her from an officer of the Workhouse, simply owing to her solicitude for a fellow inmate.

Mrs Boddington alleged that this inmate had been in such a bad state that her friends had been summoned.

The ailing woman occupied the bed next to Mrs Boddington, who says she heard special milk diet and beef tea being ordered at various times for the patient. The milk given was short of the quantity ordered, and the beef tea was not supplied.

Mrs Boddington says she directed attention to the patient's critical condition, and gave her some of her own food, which was "eaten ravenously."

One of the ward officers also behaved very kindly to the woman, and, "thanks to her and me", the patient is now considerably better.

Another charge was that for two days before the despatch of this letter the patient had not been washed. Mrs Boddington complained that the other woman in charge had "attacked her in words", and asked for an inquiry into the whole matter.

The sub-committee appointed consists of Mrs Andrews, Mrs Thompson, and Miss Rees Jones.

A STRANGE HISTORY.

Mrs Boddington is an elderly woman, whose letters give ample evidence that she has been well educated. It is stated that she is of good family and spent the greater part of her life in the Liverpool district, and that she devoted a fortune of £ 6,000 in founding a sisterhood in connection with the Roman Catholic Church. About three or four years ago she established a nursing institution and home in Cathedral-road. 

 

Western Mail - Wednesday 3 May 1899

MRS. BODDINGTON AND A FELLOW INMATE.

Mrs. Boddington wrote complaining that a ward woman had charged her with causing rows in the workhouse. She (Mrs. Boddington) denied such allegation, and maintained that the only possible foundation for the charge was found in her solicitude for a fellow inmate.

Mrs. Boddington alleged that this inmate had been in such a bad state that her friends had been summoned.

The ailing woman occupied the bed next to Mrs. Boddington, who says she heard special milk diet and beef tea being ordered at various times for the patient. The milk given was not of the quantity ordered, and the beef tea was not supplied.

Mrs. Boddington says she directed attention to the patient's critical condition, and gave her some of her own food, which was "eaten ravenously."

One of the ward officers also behaved very kindly to the woman, and, "thanks to her and me" (added Mrs. Boddington) "the patient is now considerably better."

Another charge was that for two days before the despatch of this letter the patient had not been washed. Mrs. Boddington complained that the other woman in charge had "attacked her in words", and asked for an inquiry into the whole matter.

A sub-committee was appointed, consisting of Mrs. Andrews, Mrs. Thompson, and Miss Rees Jones. to investigate the matter. 

 

Cardiff Times - Saturday 13 May 1899

CARDIFF WORKHOUSE.

Mrs Boddington's Complaints.

At Saturday's meeting of the Cardiff Board of Guardians (Mr F. J. Beavan presiding) a report was read from Mrs Andrews, Miss Rees Jones, and Mrs Thompson, who had been appointed to inquire into the allegations made by Mrs Boddington, an inmate, as to the treatment of another inmate named Wilkins by wardswomen.

The report stated that after seeing the parties concerned and the medical offices the sub-committee were of opinion that no blame attached to the wardswoman for her treatment of Mrs Boddington, and that the implied neglect in the treatment of Mrs Wilkins was not substantiated.

On the motion of the Chairman the report was adopted.

 

South Wales Echo - Saturday 3 June 1899

CARDIFF WORKHOUSE.

Mrs Boddington Again.

Dr. Sheen submitted a re-port at the request of Mr Greenhalgh the Workhouse master, as to the desirability of Mrs Boddington, an inmate, being sent to the Porthcawl Rest. He did not recommend that she be sent there. The Chairman said they must act on the medical officer's report. This was all the public business. 

 

South Wales Echo - Saturday 16 September 1899

CARDIFF GUARDIANS.

The Relief of Mrs Boddington.

The weekly meeting of the Cardiff Board of Guardians, held this afternoon, was presided over by the vice-chairman (Rev. J. R. Buckley).

A question of the relief of Mrs Boddington came before the board. She was formerly in the House, subsequently she left, and has received 5s. a week out-relief.

The money has now to come from another relief district, and the committee were not unanimous. There was a good deal of discussion upon the question. It was proposed at the outset she should have 4s.

The question of classification was discussed, the argument being that Mrs Boddington having moved in different walks of life could not live on less.

Then the discussion turned on respectability, the contention being that a respectable woman should be granted 5s. where another woman not in the possession of the saine unblemished character would receive 4s. Five shillings was proposed, and on a full vote, in which the names were challenged, 29 voted for 5s. and eight for 4s.

 

Western Mail - Monday 18 September 1899

CARDIFF GUARDIANS AND MRS. BODINGTON [sic]

The weekly meeting of the Cardiff Board of Guardians was held at the workhouse on Saturday, the Rev. J. R. Buckley (vice-chairman) presiding.

Mr. Price Jones mentioned the case of Mrs. Boddington, formerly a lady moving in good society, who was at one time an inmate of the workhouse, and is now in receipt of 5s. a week out-relief.

When she went to reside in No. 2 District the order was renewed, but the committee were not unanimous. some of the members considering that 5s. a week was excessive, and so the matter came up again before the general board.

Mr. R. Sutherland proposed that the out- relief, be 4s, a week, which was the amount given in other cases equally deserving.

Mr. Llewellyn moved that the amount be 5s. A lady could not move in good society on less than that. (Laughter)

Mr. Alexander asked what had respectability to do with it. The question was what was it right to do.

Mr. Good: I move that she have 5s. a week, because she is a widow - not because she has moved in good society. That would have no effect upon me.

Alderman Carey: It would not. (Laughter.)

Mr. F. J. Beavan thought the board should do nothing that might tend to drive the poor woman into the house again.

The Chairman was also influenced by the fact that the lady had moved in good society, although she had given them a good deal of trouble. He did not think they should give less than 5s.

Mr. Hall hoped that when he next brought up from his district a case equally deserving - of a woman with five or six children, or, perhaps, none - the board would show the same sympathy.

On a division the cries of "Aye" for 5s. distinctly overwhelmed the counter-cries of the advocates of 4s.

However, Mr. Sutherland called for names, amid cries of "Oh, oh."

Twenty-nine were for 5s., and the following eight for 4s.: - General Lee, Messrs. W. Evans, D. T. Alexander, Edward Thomas, R. Sutherland, T. Cram, E. J. Cross, and L. E. Treharne.

 

South Wales Daily News - Tuesday 19 September 1899

MRS BODDINGTON AGAIN.

At Cardiff Police Court on Monday Mrs Boddington, whose sad case has so frequently of late demanded the attention of Cardiff Union officials, made an application to Messrs Spencer, J. B. Ferrier, and Ald Carey and asked for advice upon a legal question in which she was concerned.

She said that she was a ward in Chancery, and that affidavits had been filed by the guardians in her case, and she wished to know what steps she ought to take to prove the will in question. She said she had written to the Registrar, but had had no satisfactory reply.

The Bench said that they could not advise her, and referred her to a  solicitor.

Applicant: I have no means.

Mr Spencer: We are sorry for you, but this is not the right Court.

Applicant: Which is the right Court, then?

The police requested applicant to stand down, but Mr J. B. Ferrier interposing said: If we can help her I think we should.

The Clerk: We cannot.

Mr Ferrier Why?

After some consultation the Bench said they could not assist her, at which applicant appeared very indignant, and said that it was very hard for her to walk about the town and have to be regarded as being insane.

Applicant again appealed to the Bench for opportunity to prove that she was not insane.

Ultimately applicant was removed by the police from the witness-box and left the court.

'I have trod the upward and the downward slope'

I have trod the upward and the downward slope; 
I have endured and done in days before; 
I have longed for all, and bid farewell to hope; 
And I have lived and loved, and closed the door.

Robert Louis Stevenson - Songs of Travel 

In 1978 and 1979 I visited the bass-baritone Hervey Alan (1910-1982) as piano accompanist to one of his pupils.

In his operatic work, Hervey is probably best remembered for his portrayal of the Commendatore in Mozart's Don Giovanni, recorded here at Glyndebourne in 1954.

On one of these visits we were talking about Ralph Vaughan Williams who Hervey had known. And he told me of the discovery of the unpublished manuscript of 'I have trod the upward and the downward slope', the final song in the cycle Songs of Travel.

Believed by Vaughan Williams scholar Michael Kennedy to have been written in 1903 or 1904 with the other songs, the final song had remained unpublished. This was due to the way in which the first eight songs were published not as one complete cycle. Since 'I have trod' quotes from the earlier songs, it made no sense on its own. An alternative dating is from much later in Vaughan Williams's life.

One day, after Vaughan Williams's death, Hervey told me, he was with the composer's widow Ursula Vaughan Williams in her home. She opened a cupboard and showed Hervey enormous piles of unpublished manuscripts. It was working through these heaps that Hervey and Ursula found 'I have trod'.

Boosey and Hawkes published the song for the first time in their complete edition of the songs in 1960.

The song received its first performance on 21 May 1960 on the BBC Home Service when it was sung by Hervey Alan with Frederick Stone.