RootsChat.Com

My experience and intuition were helped by Ancestry's family trees, many of which have useful links to checkable sources. They indicate that Emily's son William Frost (b. 1893 Q2, as found by wilcoxon) died in 1948, leaving widow Lilias Violet née Eves (1908-1999) and at least one daughter of Margaret Emily née Bloomfield (c.1896-1936), his previous wife.

Those trees made it easier to see that William's father, Arthur Henry Fincham (c.1871-1932), was a son of Susannah Fincham née Frost (1844-1909) and that one of her brothers was Emily Warner's first husband, George Albert Frost (b. 1852 Q1 Colchester district). So Emily's second husband was also her nephew, which is how she described William's father when testifying during the case against Arthur's sister, as reported by the EADT on Wednesday 19 Sept. 1894 (Findmypast):

CHILD NEGLECT NEAR COLCHESTER.
At the Colchester Police Court on Tuesday, before the Deputy-Mayor (W. Gurney Benham, Esq.), W. Buck, G. Moore, L. J. Watts, and C. H. T. Marshall, Esqrs., Ellen Fincham, a single woman, of Stanway, was charged on remand with having wilfully neglected William Frost, a child aged 15 months, who was in her custody, on the 20th August and other days, in a manner likely to cause injury to its health.— The Bench had adjourned this case, in order that the evidence of the mother of the child might be taken. — The mother, Emmeline Frost, who is a single woman, said that the father of the child was defendant's brother. The defendant had had charge of the child for some time past; in fact she had had charge of the child continuously since it was two months old. Witness also lived at defendant's house for a time, but left nine weeks ago. While staying at the defendant's house witness attended to it. It was very small, but she did not think it had been half starved. About the middle of August witness was passing Fincham's house, when she was called in. Fincham said to her, "If you don't come in and see your child I shall send it to the Union."—Cross-examined by Mr. Asher Prior, who appeared to prosecute on behalf of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, witness said that the father of the child was her nephew, and was much younger than she was. Witness went to see the child twice a week while it was at Crispin's Court. She also visited it once a week afterwards. The child only had condensed milk, which Fincham bought for it; one tin at 4½d. lasted a week. While witness lived with Fincham for five weeks she did not pay anything for her own board, but she always paid 2s. a week for the child. While she was staying with Fincham she noticed that the child was very small about the legs, and took it to Dr. Maybury. The child was not neglected in her presence; it used to have bread and butter and bread and potatoes in gravy besides the condensed milk. She could not account for the child gaining two pounds in weight when it was removed to the Union. —By the Chairman: The defendant on one occasion when witness was passing the house told her that she ought to be ashamed of herself for not sending more money to keep the child.—The Chairmen said: We are of opinion that in this case the most guilty parties are the father and mother. The law does not enable us to deal with them as we should like, but it is the opinion of the Bench that their conduct has been most brutal and disgraceful. You have been to some extent the victim of their indifference and neglect, but you took upon yourself the responsibility of looking after this child, and their brutality is no legal excuse for your having neglected it. At the same time we are going to deal leniently with you, and bind you over under the First Offenders Act to come up for judgment when called upon.—The costs were remitted as against the Society.

The Union was presumably the Lexden and Winstree Union Workhouse at Stanway or the children's home at Stanway Villa (https://www.workhouses.org.uk/Lexden/). The location of Crispin's Court is unclear to me.

David

Hi Francis

Baptisms at Woodbridge show that William Hartridge senior was a carpenter (1807-1810) or cabinet maker (1814-1821).

At 3B Spencer Street, Shoreditch, Middlesex, in 1851 (HO 107/1533 folio 218 verso, page 19, schedule 75) Woodbridge-born cabinet maker William (Hartnidge at Ancestry) gave his age as 40, perhaps reducing the age-gap between him and his wife, Sarah (30, born in Marylebone).

In 1861 they were at Queens Place, Shoreditch (RG 9/241 f. 7 v. p. 8 s. 37), William being 49 and Sarah 38 (Harbridge at Ancestry).

In 1871 cabinet maker William Heartridge (62) and his wife Sarah (48), both from Shoreditch, were at 45 Orange Street, Bethnal Green (RG 10/493 f. 33 p. 21 s. 110) .

In 1881 a 74-year-old widowed cabinet maker named William Pastridge (transcribed as Partride at both Ancestry and Findmypast), born in Suffolk c.1807, was lodging with gardener Thomas Reynolds at 13 Boston Terrace, Longfellow Road, Walthamstow, Essex (RG 11/1730 f. 11 v. p. 16 s. 80).

Destitution had probably caused him to spend nearly a year in Shoreditch Workhouse from August 1879, when he was recorded as a married bedstead maker, and another few days in December 1880, when he was initially registered as William Hartrage, a married cabinet maker (Ancestry: London, England, Workhouse Admission and Discharge Records, 1764-1921).

Unfortunately, his marriage seems to be as elusive as his location in 1841, but at least two potentially relevant deaths were registered in Bethnal Green: William Hartridge aged 72 in 1884 Q2 and Sarah Hartridge aged 80 in 1898 Q1.

David

Windy

The wills of both Peter Smith (1708) and Thomas Smith (1742) of Woodbridge can be downloaded from Suffolk Archives.

David

Suffolk Archives' settlement examination (FC168/G/4/2/34) of Henry SMYTH from Farnham at Orford in 1817 may reveal details of his family.