A house of this age is, by its very nature, a living museum. Every extension was put there for a specific reason and even the garden has evolved from the way the plot was worked. There is a substantial hook hanging from the ceiling right above where I now cook and in front of the back door. This is something I have seen in old shops that I have worked in before and is the hook that a carcass of meat would be left to 'hang' from until it was ready to be butchered. Now that carcass would be right in the way if we used it for the same purpose today but the back door was not in the same place previously and the meat would have been hanging in a cool dark area of the house when it was put there. Similarly there is a Well just outside the back door. It has a metal cover now but again it is not in the best position now. However in looking at the old maps we can see that the well would originally have been right in the centre of a small courtyard, a typical position. In short the inconsistencies and incongruities that these structural phenomena throw up actually tell a story of the house itself.
As the bricks and mortar write their stories into history they are supported and enhanced by the stories that the recorded documentation unveils. Generally speaking this is the story of the people and the lives of those that lived in the houses and the story of The Late Mrs.Mary Jary is a great example.
Mary married a Mr Muskett in 1812 at the age of 20 and lived in a fine country estate house at Intwood just south west of Norwich. She would have lived a fine life with the full assortment of maids, stable hands, gardeners and butlers, this was the real thing and Mary should have been fairly content with her lot. However Mary had started to get to know her next door neighbour and apple carts were about to get upset. For next door was the estate of Richard Hanbury Gurney (known as Dick) whom owned the Keswick estate. All that separated these two grand houses was several fields. Now the events that followed caused a bill for divorce to be heard in the House of Lords and it is from this transcript that some quotes are taken to assist this story.
It would appear that by 1817 the five year itch had hit young Mary and she started to meet Dick more than she ought. Let me tell you a little about Dick. He was a Banker, actually it was his families bank and recently Michael Portillo visited the old building in Norwich on his Great train journeys series. He was a Quaker and an MP for which it was said that he spent £80,000 on his election campaign. Mary started to make her weekly Pony Chaise trips to Norwich detour a mile or two where she met Dick. The Nursery Maid was with her and gave evidence in the divorce suit explaining that they met on the way to Norwich, him arriving on his horse. Mary then disembarked from her Pony Chaise and Dick dismounted from his horse whence they both walked the several miles to Norwich together. The counsel then asked in the Divorce court...
"How far did they use to walk together?"
The Maid replied,
"'Till they nearly reached Norwich; then she got into the Pony Chaise again, and he mounted his Horse again."
"Then they parted?"
"Yes."
The Maid then answered more questions about Mary and Dick meeting up which they did on several walks in what she called the plantations between the two estates. This was investigated further and it came to light that they separated themselves from the Maid and went deeper into the plantations. However the Maid could not resist and she followed them once giving the following evidence to the questions posed...
"They separated themselves from me."
"Where did they go to?"
"Into a Straw Hut."
"When they were in that Straw Hut, could you see them?"
"No."
"Was there a Seat in that Straw Hut?"
"Yes."
"A long Seat?"
"Yes."
"How long were they in that Straw Hut, out of your Sight?"
"About Half an Hour."
"When they came back again, did you observe any thing respecting your Mistress; how did her Countenance look?"
"She looked warm." (Now no smirking at the back there!)
"Did you observe any thing respecting her Bonnet?"
"Yes, it was bent down in front."
"Did you tell her of it?"
"Yes."
"What did she do?"
"She straightened it directly."
"When they came out of the Straw Hut-you have told me about her Dress-did you observe any thing about Mr. Gurney's Dress?"
"Yes, there was a little Dirt on the Back of his Coat."
Well I think that told a picture, remember that this is the House of Lords, so I am sure that they not only understood the suggestions here but half of them had probably been there and done that!
In the October Mr Muskett found out about the secret meetings and there was much gnashing of teeth with the end result that Mary was packed off to her fathers (a sort of send the faulty goods back to where you got them) and she never returned to their house again. Dick however also did not see her for four years but then started to meet her again and send secret letters via her Fathers groom and after a while a certain letter was delivered that caused some anguish, the court case continues....
"Did she appear in a distressed State?"
"Yes, she appeared uncomfortable."
"Did you deliver the Letter to Mr. Gurney?"
"Yes."
"Did he give you any Message?"
"He gave me a Letter."
"Did he state to you at that Time any thing respecting her ; what he should do?"
"Yes ; he asked me how she did, and I told him that she appeared very uncomfortable ; and he said he knew all about it, for she was with Child by him, and it was his Wish that he should take her away."
"How soon after that did she leave her Father's House?"
"About Seven or Eight Days ; or something of that."
"Did she go with the Knowledge of the Family, or privately?"
"She went away without any Knowledge of the Family."
"Did she go away in the Night, without the Family knowing when she went?"
"Yes."
Mr Gurney's mothers Coachman went to the Jary estate and surreptitiously collected Mary on the stroke of midnight taking her down to London stopping for fresh horses at Long Stratton. They then lived as man and wife in the Hanover Hotel, Hanover Square (as witnessed by the Hotel Proprietress and Mr Gurneys servant).
"Did you attend upon your Master?"
"Yes."
"Had they only One Bed?"
"There was only One Bed in the Apartments; there were Three Rooms, but only One Bed-room."
"Did they occupy that Bed-room?"
"Yes."
Mr Muskett had already successfully sued for Action for Criminal Conversation against Mr. Gurney proving that the child, also called Mary Jary was not his and won £2,000 compensation. It was Mr Gurney that pushing to get this divorce through the Lords, which he finally achieved allowing him to marry Mary and they moved to a new estate that he had bought at Thickthorn Hall just under 5 miles from the Muskett household.
It is believed that they lived happily everafter, BUT.....
Mary Jary the daughter clearly had learnt a lot from her mother and history was doomed to repeat itself.
This child, born from an adulterous love affair, married a cousin from the same family name a John GURNEY in 1846 when she was just 17 years old. Nine years later they had a baby boy which they named Richard Hanbury Joseph Gurney after her adulterous father and then in 1860 she got the 14 year itch (an itchy family this) and despite being filthy rich her love and lust got the better of her and she ran off with the footman!
This time the scandal was even bigger, it was the talk of the Town, London Town and there was even a broad sheet ballad called The Blooming Lady and the Lucky Footman! The chorus went :
She has five hundred thousand pounds
One of the richest in the land,
And she from her husband bolted,
With her fancy servant man.
This Lady was running out on one of the richest bankers in Britain for a groom and no one could understand why. Well on the face of it I too thought this but Claire who has done most of the research on this story has found a remarkable letter written by this Mary Jary in defence of her decision.
The letter is very, very long and the link is below, so give yourself half an hour or so to read it but do read it as I have not read such an eloquent and intelligent letter written with such passion, logic and heart. I could not possibly paraphrase the letter nor summarise it as it has to be read in its entirety to gain a full understanding of her reasoning's. All I will say is that this Lady was 100 years ahead of her time and that there are still dogmas and social etiquettes that are very pertinent even today in which many people feel they have been trapped. Also it is worth noting the complete respect that this Lady had for her Mother and Father (Dick and Mary) both of which appeared to have ended up devoted to her.
The Link;
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9oYrAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=mary+jary+norfolk+gurney&hl=en&ei=c-ZRTZbmFs61hAeawNTkCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false
or search for ; Mrs Gurney's apology
So I come back to John Pegg the Miller and the purchase of the Old Bakery from Mrs Mary Jary's estate on her death in 1849. Well sometimes you investigate and dig out these great stories only to find that they come to nothing. It is true that at the time these sagas were unravelling there was a Mary Jary living across the road from our building with, strangely enough, her daughter also called Mary Jary. It is true that she owned the Old Bakery and quite a lot of property around this village but most of the dates suggest that these two ladies were not the same as the two mentioned above. An unusual name yes but so often close families simply repeated old names.
OK so this tale of scandal and love may have no connection to our own story and journey but as they say, "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."
692
No comments:
Post a Comment