Community hub
0 subscribers7 pages, 0 posts
Recent from talks
All channels
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Welcome to the community hub built to collect knowledge and have discussions related to Shrigley abduction.
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Shrigley abduction
View on Wikipediafrom Wikipedia
The Shrigley abduction was an 1826 British case of a forced marriage by Edward Gibbon Wakefield to the 15-year-old heiress Ellen Turner of Pott Shrigley. The couple were married in Gretna Green, Scotland, and had travelled to Calais, France, by the time authorities were notified by Turner's father and intervened. The marriage was annulled by Parliament, and Turner was legally married two years later, at the age of 17, to a wealthy neighbour of her class. Edward Gibbon Wakefield and his brother William, who had aided him, were each convicted at trial and sentenced to three years in prison.
Background
[edit]
Ellen Turner was the daughter and only child of William Turner, a wealthy resident of Pott Shrigley, Cheshire, who owned calico printing and spinning mills.[1] At the time of the abduction, Turner was a High Sheriff of Cheshire and lived in Shrigley Hall, near Macclesfield. Fifteen-year-old Ellen came to the attention of Edward Gibbon Wakefield in 1826. He conspired with his brother William Wakefield to marry her for her inheritance.
Edward Gibbon Wakefield was 30 years old; he had been a King's Messenger (a diplomatic courier) as a teenager, and later became a diplomat. At the age of 20, he had eloped to Scotland with a 17-year-old heiress, Eliza Pattle.[2] Her mother accepted the marriage and settled £70,000 on the young couple. Eliza died four years later in 1820 after giving birth to her third child. Wakefield had political ambitions and wanted more money. He tried to break his father-in-law's will and was suspected of perjury and forgery.
Wakefield appeared to have based his plan to marry Ellen Turner on the expectation that her parents would respond as Mrs Pattle had.
False summons
[edit]On 7 March 1826,[3] Wakefield sent his servant Edward Thevenot with a carriage to Liverpool, where Ellen was a pupil at a boarding school. Thevenot presented a message to the Misses Daulby, the mistresses of the school. (The Misses Daulby were the daughters of Daniel Daulby, a well-known Liverpool collector and author of The Collected Works of Rembrandt (1796)). The message stated that Mrs Turner had become paralysed and wished to see her daughter immediately. The Misses Daulby were initially suspicious of the fact that Ellen did not recognise Thevenot but eventually let him take her away.[1]
Thevenot took Ellen Turner to Manchester and the Hotel Albion to meet Wakefield. Wakefield told her that her father's business had collapsed, and that Wakefield had agreed to take her to Carlisle, where Turner had supposedly fled to escape his creditors.
The party proceeded to Kendal, where the next day Wakefield told Ellen that her father was a fugitive. He claimed that two banks had agreed that some of her father's estate would be transferred to her or, to be exact, her husband. He said that his banker uncle had proposed that Wakefield marry Ellen, and that if she would agree to marry him, her father would be saved. Ellen allowed them to take her to Carlisle. There they met Edward's brother William Wakefield, who claimed to have spoken to Turner and got his agreement to the marriage.
Ellen finally consented and the Wakefields took her over the border of Scotland to Gretna Green, a favoured place of elopement for those who wanted to exploit the less strict marriage laws of Scotland.[1] There Ellen and Edward were married by blacksmith David Laing.
They returned to Carlisle, where Ellen said she wanted to see her father. Wakefield agreed to take her to Shrigley, but instead took her to Leeds. Wakefield then claimed he had a meeting in Paris that he could not postpone, and had to go to France by way of London. He sent his brother off, ostensibly to invite Turner to meet them in London. Wakefield and Ellen continued to London. In London, Wakefield, accompanied by Ellen, pretended to inquire after his brother and Turner. At Blake's Hotel, a valet told them that Turner and Wakefield had gone to France. Edward Wakefield and Ellen had to follow them, and he took her to Calais.
Suspicions arise
[edit]After a few days, Miss Daulby became concerned. Turner and his wife received a letter from Wakefield, stating that he had married Ellen. Wakefield may have expected the Turners to accept the marriage rather than face a public scandal. Instead, Turner went to London and asked for help from the Foreign Secretary. Learning that his daughter had been taken to the European mainland, Turner sent his brother to Calais, accompanied by a police officer and a solicitor. There they soon found the couple staying in a hotel.
Wakefield claimed that since they were legally married, Ellen could not be taken from him by force. After interviewing the girl, the French authorities let her leave the country with her uncle. Wakefield wrote a statement attesting that Ellen was still a virgin, and he left for Paris.
Arrest and trial
[edit]The British Foreign Secretary had issued a warrant for the Wakefields' arrest; William was arrested in Dover a couple of days later. He was taken to Cheshire, where magistrates debated his offence. They committed him to Lancaster Castle to await trial. The Court of King's Bench later released him on £2,000 bail and two sureties of £1,000 each.
Edward Thevenot and the Wakefields' stepmother Frances were indicted as accomplices. Both brothers and their stepmother appeared in court and pleaded "not guilty". Thevenot, who was still in France, was indicted for felony in absentia. On 23 March 1827 all three defendants were put on trial in Lancaster. The jury found all guilty the same day. They were committed to Lancaster Castle the following day.
On 14 May the Wakefields were taken to the Court of King's Bench in Westminster Hall in London. William testified that he had acted as guided by his brother. Edward Wakefield swore that the legal expenses had exceeded £3,000. The court sentenced the brothers to three years in prison, Edward in Newgate[4] and William in Lancaster Castle. Frances Wakefield was released. The marriage was later annulled by Act of Parliament on 14 June 1827.[1][5]
Aftermath
[edit]
After his release, Edward Wakefield became active in prison reform. He became involved in colonial affairs, and had roles in the development of South Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. William Wakefield became an early leader in the colonisation of New Zealand.
William Turner was elected Member of Parliament for Blackburn as a Whig in 1832, serving until 1841. At the age of 17, Ellen Turner married Thomas Legh, a wealthy neighbour.[5] She died in childbirth at the age of 19 and was survived by a daughter.[1]
References
[edit]- ^ a b c d e Fox, Sarah (11 June 2020), "Turner, Ellen (1811–1831), heiress and abductee", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/odnb/9780198614128.013.369347, ISBN 978-0-19-861412-8, retrieved 7 November 2024
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link) - ^ "Gwynn, William, fl 1807-1817 :Eliza P... | Items | National Library of New Zealand | National Library of New Zealand". natlib.govt.nz. Retrieved 7 November 2024.
- ^ Cox, David J. (February 2010). A Certain Share of Low Cunning: A History of the Bow Street Runners, 1792-1839. Routledge. p. 196. ISBN 978-1-317-43672-0.
- ^ Valerie Knowles, Strangers at Our Gates: Canadian Immigration and Immigration Policy, 1540–2015, 2016, ISBN 978-1-45973-285-8, Dundurn Press: Toronto, p. 58.
- ^ a b "LEGH, Thomas (?1793-1857), of Lyme Hall, Cheshire. | History of Parliament Online". www.historyofparliamentonline.org. Retrieved 7 November 2024.
- Kate M. Atkinson, Abduction: The Story of Ellen Turner. ISBN 978-0-9543896-0-4.
- Audrey Jones & Abby Ashby (2005). The Shrigley Abduction. ISBN 978-0-7509-3297-4.
Shrigley abduction
View on Grokipediafrom Grokipedia
Historical and Legal Context
Marriage Laws and Heiress Vulnerabilities in Early 19th-Century Britain
In early 19th-century England, the minimum legal age for marriage stood at 12 for females and 14 for males, rooted in longstanding canon law, though the Clandestine Marriages Act of 1753 mandated that individuals under 21 obtain parental or guardian consent for validity, with ceremonies required in Anglican churches following publication of banns or issuance of a license.[7][8] This framework aimed to curb secret unions but inadvertently heightened risks for underage parties by channeling disputes into courts rather than preventing irregular matches outright.[7] A prominent loophole emerged through elopements to Gretna Green, the first Scottish village across the English border, where irregular marriages—often solemnized by blacksmiths without parental oversight or church rites—were recognized under Scots law, which lacked equivalent consent requirements until later reforms.[9] Historical registers from 1825–1827 reveal that approximately 70% of such Gretna unions involved at least one party under 21, underscoring the scale of bypassed English safeguards, with roughly 300 marriages annually in the village during peak Regency years.[10][11] Under the common-law doctrine of coverture, a married woman's separate legal existence merged with her husband's upon matrimony, automatically transferring her real and personal property—including substantial inheritances of heiresses—into his control, thereby rendering such women prime targets for fortune-seeking suitors unburdened by equivalent spousal liabilities.[12][13] This system prioritized patriarchal inheritance lines and dower provisions over individual consent, particularly for minors, as statutes like those governing wardships emphasized asset preservation for future unions rather than coercive prevention.[14] Abductions aimed at marriage fell under general felony provisions for kidnapping or enticement with lucre intent, but lacked tailored statutes for affluent victims until the Offences Against the Person Act of 1828 explicitly criminalized forcible abduction for marital purposes; prior to this, prosecutions hinged on proving felony malice amid claims of elopement consent, exploiting evidentiary gaps in upper-class cases where property motives overshadowed personal autonomy. Historical court records distinguish prevalent consensual elopements—facilitated by Gretna's accessibility—from rarer overt kidnappings, yet document recurrent fortune-hunting deceptions targeting heiresses, blending seduction with coercion to secure estates amid weak preemptive legal barriers.[15][16]Social Norms and Motivations for Fortune-Hunting Schemes
In early 19th-century Britain, primogeniture and strict entails ensured that family estates passed intact to eldest sons, leaving younger siblings and those from middling mercantile backgrounds with scant inheritance and compelling them to seek fortunes through commerce, professions, or advantageous marriages.[17] This system reinforced class rigidity, where social ascent demanded calculated risks, as cross-class unions provided one viable route for men without landed wealth to secure economic stability and status.[18] The Industrial Revolution amplified these incentives by concentrating new wealth in entrepreneurial families, such as the Turners, whose salt manufacturing enterprises amassed fortunes estimated at over £600,000 for heiress Ellen Turner alone, rendering such women prime targets for adventurers eyeing swift capital accumulation.[19] Absent modern welfare mechanisms or widespread merit-based opportunities, rational self-interest drove individuals from modest origins—like Edward Gibbon Wakefield, son of a London merchant with political aspirations but limited funds—to view heiress marriages as essential shortcuts to funding societal influence and parliamentary ambitions.[4] Courtship rituals normalized elements of artifice, including exaggerated claims of prospects and strategic flattery to woo potential brides, reflecting a cultural acceptance of marriage as an economic transaction over romantic ideal.[20] However, when conventional suitors failed due to family vigilance or mismatched statuses, fortune hunters escalated to manipulative schemes, blurring the line between permissible deception and predatory fraud in a context where familial wealth disparities incentivized exploitation over gradual self-advancement.[21]Principal Figures
Edward Gibbon Wakefield: Background and Character
Edward Gibbon Wakefield was born on 20 March 1796 in London, the second of nine children to Edward Wakefield, a farmer and land agent, and Susanna Crash.[22] His family's early years involved financial instability, contributing to a childhood marked by "extreme habits of liberty."[23] Wakefield received an irregular education, attending schools in Tottenham, Westminster, and Edinburgh but being withdrawn or refusing attendance, before spending time at home from 1811 to 1813 and being admitted to Gray's Inn in 1813 without pursuing law.[23] At age 18, he entered diplomatic service as a messenger in 1814, traveling Europe and serving as secretary to the British legation in Turin.[23][24] In 1816, at age 20, Wakefield eloped with 16-year-old heiress Eliza Anne Frances Pattle, a ward in chancery with a £70,000 trust fund, marrying her first in Edinburgh on 27 July and then in London on 10 August.[25][23] The union secured him an annual settlement of £1,500 to £2,000 and a diplomatic promotion, demonstrating his early use of marriage to heiresses as a means of financial and social advancement.[23] Pattle's death in 1820 left Wakefield with insufficient resources for his ambitions, such as purchasing an estate or entering Parliament, amid accumulating debts that motivated further fortune-seeking schemes.[22][24] This pattern reflected a strategic rationale of leveraging coerced or deceptive unions for capital to fuel personal elevation, rather than legitimate enterprise.[24] Contemporary assessments portrayed Wakefield as obstinate and wilful from boyhood, with an overriding appetite for power and influence.[25][23] His charm and persuasive abilities masked manipulative tendencies, enabling him to exploit vulnerabilities for gain, as seen in his prior elopement.[24] While Wakefield later framed such pursuits as bold entrepreneurialism, evidence from his actions indicates predatory opportunism, prioritizing personal wealth over ethical constraints.[24][22]