Untold lives blog

Samuel Hough first appears in the records of the East India Company as Master Attendant of Marine at Bombay in the 1730s.  The Marine fleet guarded British shipping on the west coast of India mainly from attack by local pirates but also from other nations at time of war.  His position gave him standing in the community and he must have been a brave officer, as shown by an event in 1748 when he was in command of the Bombay, at anchor at Rajapore.  Some of his crew had been impressed, but on 1 March the remainder mutinied and broke open the arms-chest.  Hough managed to reason with the men, promising safe passage back to England at the first opportunity and after seven hours he took back control.  His promise was honoured by the Government who needed crew to man ships on the return to England at this time of war with France.

An aquatint of a view of Bombay Harbour from the pier up to the Bunder Battery including part of the fort or Citadel. From James Wales, Bombay Views: Twelve Views Of The Island Of Bombay And Its Vicinity Taken In The Years 1791 And 1792. British Library shelfmark X 436. Images Online

Shortly after this, on 19 May 1748, Captain Samuel Hough married Mrs Judith Sclater, a widow with two small daughters.  They had two more daughters (Louisa and Ann) before Judith died in January 1752.  At the end of that year Samuel took all four little girls back to England on the Streatham, disembarking on 7 June 1753.

On 16 March 1754 Samuel Hough married Martha Crichton at St Mary the Virgin, Aldermanbury.  She came from a family well established in the East India Company and within a few weeks she sailed off to Bombay.  Her husband captained their voyage on the Hardwicke which was to remain in Bombay as part of the Marine.

They had been joined on the Streatham by Laurence Sulivan and his family, also returning home.  The two men had been friends and business associates and this arrangement continued to their mutual advantage. Back in Bombay Hough acted as an agent holding powers of attorney on behalf of his clients and could provide ways of remitting Indian funds through confidants among his fellow captains, to be deposited with Sulivan in London, on their behalf.

Appointment of Samuel Hough as Superintendent of the Bombay Marine - IOR/E/4/996 p.69 General Letter from Court of Directors to Bombay 5 April 1754

Samuel Hough was appointed Superintendent of the Bombay Marine, the highest ranking officer below the Council members.  It is clear he was greatly respected and his opinion was valued by the Council.  By 1759 he had become one of the Council members but he returned to England on the Harcourt, arriving back on 18 May 1761.  By this time his family had grown - Louisa and Ann were joined by a baby brother William and a sister Elizabeth.

Entry from the journal of the ship Streatham Wednesday 29 November 1752 - IOR/L/MAR/B/605H

Back in London Hough continued his involvement with the East India Company by investing in and managing ships.  He was the second signature on the charterparty agreements for five ships in the 1761/2 season with four more voyages for 1762/3.

Samuel died on 5 September 1764 at Bath.  In his will he left bequests to his three daughters and his son William but also named a ‘natural son Samuel Hough, now a mate on the Latham Indiaman’.  Samuel junior went on to become a sea captain with the East India Company, married in September 1777 but died a year later.

CC-BY
Georgina Green
Independent researcher

Creative Commons Attribution licence

The National Lottery is celebrating its 30th anniversary.  To mark this occasion we look at one of the collections acquired with the help of National Lottery funding: the papers of Edward Robert Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Earl of Lytton, as Viceroy of India 1876-1880.

Lord Lytton, Viceroy of India. Grand Master of the Star of India, c. 1876. From J. Talboys Wheeler, The History of the Imperial Assemblage at Delhi (London, 1877). British Library shelfmark Photo 1054/(2). Images Online

Lytton was born in 1831, son of the writer Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton.  Following his education at Harrow and the University of Bonn, he entered the diplomatic service in 1849.  He spent the first half of his career in various diplomatic posts around Europe and was serving as British Minister Plenipotentiary at Lisbon when he was appointed Viceroy of India in 1876 by the Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli.  His term of office would be controversial entailing war in Afghanistan, famine in India and an attempt to tighten British control over the native press.  The collection includes letters from a wide range of people in India and England, as well as correspondence between Lytton and the Secretary of State for India, and British officials and politicians on matters relating to Indian government.  There are also letters to and from members of the British Royal family.

Map showing the frontier with Afghanistan 1880 - Mss Eur E218/126

Perhaps not surprisingly, a dominant subject of the papers in the collection is Afghanistan and the Second Anglo-Afghan war.  The rivalry between Britain and Russia in Central Asia, often referred to as the Great Game, was one of the defining aspects of British foreign policy in the mid-19th century.  Lytton had been given the task of securing an alliance with the Amir of Afghanistan Sher Ali Khan who was thought to be too pro-Russian, but on failing in this he opted to order an invasion instead.  The collection contains correspondence, minutes, reports, and notes on relations with the Amir of Afghanistan, future policy, and the frontiers of India, for example:
• Correspondence respecting relations with Afghanistan since the accession of Sher Ali Khan, Jul 1863 to Nov 1878, reference Mss Eur E218/123.
• Minutes and notes by the Viceroy relating to Afghanistan and the frontiers of India, 1876-1880, reference Mss Eur E218/125.
• Correspondence and other papers concerning the attack on the British Embassy at Kabul and subsequent military operations, Sep 1879 to Mar 1880, reference Mss Eur E218/127.

A statement on the Indian Famine of 1877 - Mss Eur E218/136

One of the most controversial aspects of Lytton’s time as Viceroy was his government’s response to the great famine of 1876-1878.  This was caused by drought leading to crop failure, affecting many parts of India, with the death toll estimated at between 6 and 10 million people.  The high mortality rate was in part blamed on the government’s minimal famine relief measures. The collection includes several files on the famine, such as:
• Volume of cuttings from Indian and newspapers concerning the famine, Jul 1877 to Feb 1878, reference Mss Eur E218/134.
• Volume of printed weather reports from each province and of rain telegrams sent to the Private Secretary's Office, Jul 1877 to Jan 1878, reference Mss Eur E218/135.
• The Indian Famine of 1877 being a statement of the measures proposed by the Government of India for the prevention and relief of famines in the future (1878), reference Mss Eur E218/136.

Minute by the Viceroy Lord Lytton on Afghanistan - Mss Eur E218/125

The collection also touches on other aspects of Indian government, such as Indian finances, new legislation, appointments to the Indian Civil Service, and includes two files on attempts to control Indian newspapers and publications:
• Papers concerning the Native Press and the 1878 Vernacular Press Act, 1858-1881, reference Mss Eur E218/146.
• Correspondence between the Secretary of State for India and the Government of India on the control of publications in Oriental languages, 1878, reference Mss Eur E218/147.

Weather Reports for Hyderabad July 1877 - Mss Eur E218/135

John O’Brien
India Office Records

Further Reading:
Papers of 1st Earl of Lytton as Viceroy of India 1876-1880, collection reference Mss Eur E218. Deposited on permanent loan by Lady Hermione Cobbold in 1955. Purchased from Lord Cobbold in 2004 with assistance from the Heritage Lottery Fund, The Friends of the British Library, The Friends of the National Libraries and The Lord Farringdon Charitable Trust.

A list of the Lytton Papers can be found on The National Archives'  Discovery catalogue: Papers of 1st Earl of Lytton as Viceroy of India 1876-80.

On 31 May 1916, the India Office Library purchased seven items at auction from Hodgson & Co.  Lot 29 cost £1 10 shillings, with 9d postage.  The correspondence about the purchase is significant because it establishes that the items once belonged to the collection of Sir Alexander Johnston, Chief Justice and President in Council in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka).  This provenance information had not previously been recorded in our catalogues and the link between the items had been obscured.

Notice of auction at Hodgson & Co - Westminster Gazette 27 May 1916 British Newspaper Archive

Lot 29 included copies of letters relating to Baptist Missionary Henry Beddy.  Born in Dublin, he enlisted in the East India Company’s Bengal Army at 19, arriving in India in 1811 to serve in the Bengal Artillery.  Beddy married three times.  His first wife Mary Anne died in childbirth in 1816, and his second wife (also Mary Anne) died in 1822.  On 16 January 1823 he married Margaret MacDonough, and they had at least 11 children.

List of correspondence relating to Henry Beddy -Mss Eur C92

Henry Beddy was baptised into the Baptist faith about 1827, and having left the Bengal Army was appointed as a Baptist Missionary to Patna in 1831.  Margaret’s younger sister Ellen (Eleanor) MacDonough lived with the Beddys from childhood and was closely involved in missionary work, running the Orphan Refuge.

Ellen became involved with government servant George Hutteman.  Henry Beddy tried to put an end to the relationship, but on 20 November 1847 Ellen eloped with George, married, and moved to Calcutta.  Beddy found it impossible to understand Ellen’s actions and wrote a number of letters to her, besmirching her character.  On 1 December 1847 he wrote ‘Not a member of my family shall ever speak to you with my permission... I shall impress on the children’s mind that their Aunt Ellen MacDonough is to them dead’.  Beddy was later to admit: ‘I had written language capable of being used to my discredit’.

The Huttemans attended the Lall Bazar Baptist Church in Calcutta.  The Minister James Thomas wrote to Beddy about his sister-in-law.  Beddy’s reply accused Ellen of falsehood and deception and stated that George was an ‘unbeliever’.  His hostile attitude led to an investigation into his conduct towards Ellen. 

Note by James Thomas introducing the collection of documents about Henry Beddy and Ellen MacDonough -Mss Eur C92

Thomas gathered together copies of correspondence from the various protagonists and witnesses, so they could be presented to a Baptist Committee in London.  Beddy’s own letters admitted ‘an intimacy, friendship and affection sprang up between us that led to great familiarity, and it is now lamentably true that this familiarity was looked upon by some persons as improper’, whilst Reverend Nathaniel Brice was of the opinion that ‘there are facts connected with the affair which would make your ears tingle...’.

Extract of letter from Henry Beddy to James Thomas, 13 March 1848 --Mss Eur C92

Removed from Patna, Beddy and his family moved to Simla, where he became Pastor at the First Baptist Church.  He died there on 3 June 1857.

Ellen and George had three daughters, and after his death in 1866, she married Reverend John Lawrence of Monghyr.  She died in Christchurch, Hampshire, in 1879.

The India Office appreciated that the contents of the volume were problematic.  In a letter dated 26 January 1936 the Librarian H N Randle wrote that he hesitated to include the letters as part of the forthcoming catalogue of manuscripts as ‘there may be relatives alive, even after 90 years and it seems best to let these personalities rest in obscurity for another hundred years’.

Provenance research is more than acquiring a greater understanding of our collections and their history. It uncovers fascinating human stories along the way.

Lesley Shapland
Archivist & Provenance Researcher
India Office Records

Further reading:
Mss Eur C92: Volume compiled by Rev J Thomas, Calcutta, containing copies of correspondence relating to charges of misconduct against Rev Henry Beddy, missionary at Patna for the London Baptist Missionary Society
IOR/L/R/7/20, R961/16: India Office Record Department Annual Files, 1916
Mss Eur F303/23, p.137: India Office Library, Day Book, 14 Jul 1916
IOR/L/R/9/26, L36/37: Library Committee Papers & References, 1937
Missionary Herald, May 1832 
Full text of 'The story of the Lall Bazar Baptist Church Calcutta : being the history of Carey's church from 24th April 1800 to the present day'
India Office Library Catalogue of Manuscripts in European Languages. Vol. II, Pt. II: Minor Collections and Miscellaneous Manuscripts. By G. R. Kaye and E. H. Johnston. Section I, Nos. 1–538 (London: HMSO, 1937)

A previous post on this blog told the story of Alice Buckley who contacted the India Office regarding hidden stolen loot.  However, this isn’t the only such case which came to the notice of government.

In April 1905, the India Office received a communication from the Rev Dr Hume, a missionary of the American Board who worked in Ahmednagar and was then on furlough in America.  Hume was acting on behalf of Edward Dowling of 61 Henry Street, New York City.  At that time Dowling was 73 years old and infirm, and felt he needed to make a statement to government concerning some buried loot.  In November 1858, Dowling was a sergeant with the 54th West Norfolk Regiment serving in Oudh.  Along with three friends he had found and buried some loot, amounting to 3 bags of gold coins, a quantity of silver, and two packages of precious stones in the joints of hollow bamboos.  He said it would not be ‘either correct of politic’ for him to give the names of his comrades.  He offered to return to India and help officials there to find the loot.

Edward Dowling's first statement IOR/L/PJ/6/718, File 1152

The Government of India accepted this offer, but Dowling’s doctor then forbade him from travelling on health grounds, stating that ‘any attempt on his part to make such an extended trip would simply be suicidal’. 

Report on Edward Dowling's health by Dr J Huber IOR/L/PJ/6/718, File 1152

Instead, Dowling made a more detailed statement to aid any attempt to find the loot, and this survives in India Office files.  The statement is headed ‘Directions for finding loot hidden near the fort of Amathie, Oudh, India, on the 11th November 1858’.

Edward Dowling's second statement IOR/L/PJ/6/718, File 1152

Dowling and three comrades were spread out foraging in the vicinity of the deserted fort of Amethi, attended by a camp-follower.  The camp-follower came running towards Dowling shouting ‘Loot Sahib’, pursued by a rebel sowar who cut him down before Dowling could prevent it.  Near him they found loot consisting of gold and silver coins and precious stones.  Knowing the strict rules against looting, they carefully checked no-one was nearby, and then two men kept watch while the other two buried the loot.  It required a trench 8ft long and 2ft deep.  The surplus earth was thrown into a nearby swamp, and every care was taken to conceal the place.  However, one of the men was unreliable as he had a record of drunkenness and tended to blab when drunk.  So the two men who had originally buried the loot moved it half a mile to the west.  They didn’t have an opportunity of telling Dowling as his wing of the Regiment had moved to Fyzabad, while the other three went to Sultanpur.

Edward Dowling's map of the area showing the location of the treasure IOR/L/PJ/6/718, File 1152

The two men who buried the loot died without Dowling seeing them again, but one of them on his deathbed sent for the unreliable man and told him where the loot was.  He gave him £300 and instructed him to tell Dowling, which he evidently didn’t.  Dowling did not see or hear anything until March 1904 when he met the unreliable man accidently in the Bowery in New York.  Dowling said that he was in a deplorable condition, and he did what he could to help him. After a couple of weeks, he disappeared, and Dowling was unable to trace him and believed him to be dead.

On 18 August 1905, the India Office forwarded the information to the Government of India with the instruction to take what action they deemed advisable.  Sadly, there are no further papers in the files indicating what action, if any, was taken.

John O’Brien
India Office Records

Further Reading:
Offer of information concerning the position of valuable plunder said to have been buried in Oudh during the Mutiny, April 1905, shelfmark: IOR/L/PJ/6/718, File 1152.

One Saturday evening in May 1870 at Murree Station, Bengal, a ball was held for the civil and military officers and their families stationed there.

People dancing at a ball from Dean's Shilling Story Books, 1876 - 12809.g.21 Images Online

The next morning, the ball’s attendees were surprised to find the Station’s Chaplain, Reverend William Whitmarsh Phelps, preaching his sermon on the immoralities of dancing and of attending such balls.  He went on to make comments more generally on the financial situation of men and what he seemed to view as the excessive spending associated with balls commenting on the ‘probable inability of husbands to meet their wives' milliners’ bills.’

Many of the individuals in the congregation found his remarks to be inappropriate and out of line, and wrote to Robert Millman, Bishop of Calcutta, to complain about Phelps’s conduct.

The Bishop’s response to the complaints was prompt and decisive.  He censured Phelps for his comments, stating that the very idea of dancing being immoral seemed absurd and that he found the Reverend’s comments regarding officers' finances to be impertinent.

'The Immorality of Dancing' - Newspaper article from the Boston Guardian, 11 June 1870 British Newspaper Archive

Phelps did not remain in Bengal much longer following the events in Murree.  By 1872 he had left India on furlough, retiring from service on 16 July 1872.

The Reverend William Whitmarsh Phelps was born in Cricklade, Wiltshire, in 1826, the son of Reverend William Whitmarsh and Octavia his wife.  He studied for the clergy at Queen’s College Oxford and received his M.A. in 1852.  He was appointed an Assistant Chaplain on the East India Company’s Bengal Establishment on 2 August 1854 and was subsequently posted to Peshawar, Sialkot and Rawalpindi before being appointed as a Chaplain in 1866.  He had been Chaplain in Mian Mir before being posted to Murree.

He married firstly in Lee, Kent, in 1857 to Amelia Matilda Hughes Hughes.  The couple had no children and she died in Eastbourne, Sussex, in 1892.  Phelps married for a second time the following year to Laura King.  They had one daughter Laura Elizabeth Whitmarsh who was born in Eastbourne in 1894.

William Whitmarsh Phelps died on 6 October 1906 in Brighton Sussex, one month shy of his 80th birthday.

Karen Stapley
Curator, India Office Records

Further Reading:
IOR/E/4/828, p.103 - Appointment of Reverend W.W. Phelps to the Bengal Ecclesiastical Establishment
Boston Guardian 11 June 1870 ‘The Immorality of Dancing’ British Newspaper Archive
S. J. McNally, The Chaplains of the East India Company, p.87 entry for William Whitmarsh Phelps - Available in Asian and African Studies Reading Room OIR 253.0954

When the East India Company (EIC) invaded the South Indian kingdom of Sivaganga in 1772, they met with opposition from Indian warrior women.  These women were a diverse group from different walks of life - royal household, rural areas, across all caste groups.  Although many of their names and stories have not found a place in history, they have survived in local folklore, songs, bharathanatyam performances, and have been immortalised as deities in the local temples.

View of Sivaganga, Mysore, India. Wash-drawing by Colin MacKenzie, 1800 - British Library WD570.

Here is the story of three of these early female freedom fighters: Velu Nachiyar, Udaiyaal and Kuyili.  As the earliest women to rise against the EIC, their lives offer a glimpse into the beginnings of the anti-colonial movements, evoking an image of resilience and fortitude.

Rani Velu Nachiyar was a formidable Tamil Queen, who was both admired and vilified by the British for her valour and bravery in defending her kingdom.  She was born in 1730 to the Raja and Rani of the Ramnad kingdom. Skilled in the art of warfare and weaponry, Velu Nachiyar was also a scholar, and mastered several languages including English, French and Urdu.  At the age of 16, she married the prince of Sivaganga, Muthuvadugananthur Udaiyathevar. In 1750, Velu Nachiyar and her husband became monarchs of the Kingdom of Sivaganga.

Sword with double edged steel blade; iron hilt, guard, pommel and reinforcements. Two brass jingles below the pommel cap.Tamil Nadu (Sivaganga) India, 17th century. V&A Collections (Accession No. IM.11-1924).

In 1772, EIC troops, alongside the Nawab of Arcot’s son, invaded Sivaganga and marched towards the Kalaiyar Kovil Fort.  The Raja of Sivaganga was killed at the Battle of Kalaiyar Kovil on 25 June.  The kingdom fell under enemy control and the Kalaiyar Kovil Fort was plundered.  Rani Velu Nachiyar and her daughter Vellachi escaped capture through the sacrifice of Udaiyaal, a village woman who refused to reveal their secret hideout during interrogation and who was killed for her insubordination.  Rani Velu Nachiyar and Vellachi fled Sivaganga and sought refuge near Dindigul.

View of Dindigul. Tamil Nadu, India, 1790 - British Library WD 640, f.3(16)).

During her eight-year exile, Rani Velu Nachiyar acquired influential alliances with neighbouring rulers (e.g. Gopala Nayaker, Hyder Ali) who supported her preparations for battle against the EIC, providing additional soldiers, weapons, resources and training. Rani Nachiyar built an army of fierce female warriors that she named after Udaiyaal.

Mausoleum of Haidar Ali near Mysore, Karnataka. Coloured aquatint by J. Wells after A. Allan, 1794 -Wellcome Collections (Reference: 29869i).

In 1780, Rani Velu Nachiyar and the Udaiyaal army skilfully infiltrated Sivaganga.  Aware of the superior military prowess of the British, Rani Nachiyar used her knowledge of the terrain and employed guerrilla warfare tactics - spies, sabotage, ambush.  Rani Nachiyar’s military advisor was Kuyili, a woman from a lower caste background.  As a spy for the royal household, she had protected the Rani’s life on multiple occasions and soon rose to the rank of commander-in-chief of the Udaiyaal women’s army.  At the Battle of Sivaganga, Kuyili devised a strategy to attack the EIC’s weapons storage.  Disguised as a rural woman, Kuyili entered the secure storehouse unnoticed and set herself ablaze, destroying the EIC’s weapons and ammunitions.  The EIC and the Nawab fled from Sivaganga in defeat and Rani Nachiyar regained her Kingdom.  The Tamil Queen ruled Sivaganga for another decade before handing the kingdom to her daughter.

View of Shevagunga on the road to Seringapatam. Wash-drawing by Robert Home, 1792 - British Library WD3775[14].

In recent years India has honoured the memory of these women warriors through issuing commemorative stamps, installing monuments and memorials.

Rani Velu Nachiyar on Indian postage stamp 2008- Wikimedia Commons

The contribution of these women as warriors vanished at the intersection of colonialism and patriarchy, instead brown women were recast as helpless and in need of saving. I hope this blog post creates curiosity and the excavation of more stories of Warrior Women!

CC-BY
Theeba Krishnamoorthy
Research Fellow, University of East London

Creative Commons Attribution licence

Further reading:
Archer, Mildred. British Drawings in the India Office Library, Vol. 2: Official and Professional Artists (London: 1969), p474-475.
Letters received from Madras (28 Feb 1772 - 29 Oct 1773), including letters from General Smith regarding the Carracoil War. British Library, IOR/E/4/305.
Mishra, A., Mishra, M. and Paluri, L. (2021) 'Velu Nachiyar: The Veeramangai who petrified the British'. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 12(8).

NB In the British Library archives: (1) Raja (King) Muthuvadugananthur Udaiyathevar of Sivaganga is referred to as Nalcooty Polygar; and (2) Kalaiyar Kovil is spelt as Kella Coil or Carracoil.

In December 1919, Paris was awash with diplomats.  The victors of the First World War met to calculate reparations and carve new political entities from collapsed empires.  Amidst these negotiations, a smaller diplomatic mission was conducted.  On 25 December, a British Captain named Norman Bray found himself rushing from hotel to hotel.  He hoped to arrange a meeting between representatives of two men who now dominated the Arabian Peninsula, and thereby prevent war breaking out between two British allies.

Bray was the political officer accompanying the ‘Najd Mission’.  This was a delegation representing the ruler of the Emirate of Najd, ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ibn Sa’ūd, and led by his teenage son, Shaikh Fayṣal bin ‘Abd al-‘Azīz Āl Sa‘ūd.  Under ibn Sa’ūd’s leadership, and with the help of an alliance with Britain, the Emirate had expanded rapidly.

Shaikh Fayṣal bin ‘Abd al-‘Azīz Āl Sa‘ūd, photographed in 1919 during the Mission’s visit to England. Source: Wikimedia Commons 

It now found itself clashing with its neighbour, the Hashemite Kingdom of the Hejaz.  The Hashemite ruler, King Husayn bin ‘Alī al-Hāshimī, had initiated the British-backed Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire.  His son Emir Fayṣal bin al-Husayn bin ‘Alī al-Hāshimī, the Revolt’s battlefield leader, had travelled to France to argue for a unified Arab state under Husayn’s rule.  The British were anxious to avoid a military clash between their allies, and so Bray sought to arrange a meeting in the hope that the sons might influence their fathers towards a peaceful resolution.

Emir Fayṣal bin al-Ḥusayn bin ‘Alī al-Hāshimī (centre) with his delegation at Versailles. Source: Wikimedia Commons  

Despite Bray’s hopes, almost all the Mission’s time in Paris passed without a meeting between the Shaikh and the Emir.  But on the evening of 25 December, the night before the Mission was to depart for Najd, the party found that Emir Fayṣal had left a card at their hotel.

The Mission received an invitation to meet Emir Fayṣal on the evening of 25 December 1919 - IOR/L/PS/10/391/1 f.557

Bray was eager to take advantage of this ‘un-expected courtesy’, but Aḥmad bin ‘Abdullāh Āl Thunayān- a key advisor to ibn Sa’ūd and senior member of the Najd Mission- refused to allow Shaikh Fayṣal to meet the Emir.  Aḥmad argued that the Emir’s failure to contact them earlier was disrespectful.  Bray nonetheless endeavoured to make contact himself, visiting ‘all the principal Hotels in Paris’.  He failed to find the Emir, but did encounter one of his advisors, Brigadier General Gabriel Haddad Pasha; the two agreed to bring the parties together.

Bray spent the night of Christmas 1919 searching Paris hotels, eventually finding Haddad Pasha, an advisor to the Emir - IOR/L/PS/10/391/1 f.558 

As neither side was willing to visit the other, Bray proposed a compromise- he would host a ‘private luncheon’ that both parties could attend without losing status.  Haddad Pasha agreed, provided that it was preceded by an introductory meeting.  This meeting was almost derailed by the refusal of one member of the Najd Mission to attend.

‘Abdulla’, a member of the Najd Mission, initially refused to go to the meeting with Emir Fayṣal, but was persuaded by Bray’s reminder that the meeting could benefit ibn Sa’ūd - IOR/L/PS/10/391/1 f.559 

Eventually, the Mission found themselves in Emir Fayṣal’s hotel room.  The conversation was ‘harmless’, other than a ‘rather tactless question’ from the Emir regarding the Ikhwan, ibn Sa’ūd’s fiercely loyal shock troops.  A ‘strain both in attitude and conversation’ ended the meeting.  Aḥmad ‘very politely refused’ the suggestion of further discussions and Bray abandoned the idea, lamenting that his last-minute diplomacy had failed.

Conflict between Najd and Hejaz proved to be unavoidable.  In 1925, ibn Sa’ūd conquered the Hejaz, absorbing the Hashemite kingdom into his state, soon to be renamed Saudi Arabia.  Emir Fayṣal became ruler of the short-lived Kingdom of Syria, and after a French army had driven him out, was established by the British as the ruler of the new Kingdom of Iraq.

Dan McKee
Content Specialist Archivist
British Library/Qatar Foundation Partnership

Further reading:
File 2182/1913 Pt 11 'Arabia: relations with BIN SAUD Hedjaz-Nejd Dispute', British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers, IOR/L/PS/10/391/1, in Qatar Digital Library 

Revolutions and Rebellions: Arab Revolt (Ottoman Empire/Middle East)

We continue the story of Jabez Tepper, cousin of JMW Turner...

Jabez Tepper is buried in Brookwood Cemetery, Surrey, in a grave that contains several other Turner relatives.

Gravestone for Jabez Tepper at Brookwood Cemetery in Surrey. Photograph by author.

In January 1872, letters of administration for Tepper’s estate were granted to his cousin, William Coham Turner, as it was thought that he had died intestate.  This grant was revoked in July 1872, following the discovery of a will dated January 1835 which named his mother and her heirs as beneficiaries.  Tepper’s brother, Samuel, a house painter and carpenter, now the sole heir, was located in Alabama USA.  He returned to England in May 1872 and stayed with William Coham Turner in St John’s Wood, London.  The will was granted probate in August 1872.  In the documents Tepper is described as a bachelor.

Arrival of Samuel Tepper in England from Alabama - Leeds Times 11 May 1872 British Newspaper Archive

Samuel Tepper met with Victoria Boyer, Jabez Tepper’s elder married daughter.  Because they were illegitimate, neither Victoria nor Catherina had any claim on the estate, but Samuel Tepper wanted to do the right thing and gave a substantial sum to each of the sisters.

Shortly after Jabez Tepper’s death, Mary Pennell went to his offices in Bedford Row, with a friend, and arranged for the removal of furniture, a large chest of silver plate and other valuables, including a diamond snuff box, which had been a gift to JMW Turner from King Louis-Phillipe of France.  She also visited and removed items from the farm in Sussex where she had lived with Tepper.  She was later apprehended and taken to court, charged with theft.  Mary claimed that she had a right to the property as she had lived as Tepper’s wife for sixteen years but could produce no proof of marriage.  She denied the existence of any will, although there were rumours that copies had been destroyed.  At the preliminary hearing it was judged that there was insufficient evidence for a successful prosecution and the case was dismissed.

Samuel Tepper returned to his home in Camden, Alabama, in October 1873, with a substantial sum of money and several Turner paintings and engraving plates.  He disposed of many others before he left, not wishing to pay the duty for importing them.  He suffered from ill health and probably depression and, in 1887, took his own life.

Gold snuff-box with floral and foliate ornament.  On the lid is the monogram LP with crown above for Louis Philippe, all in diamonds set in silver. © The Trustees of the British Museum 

After Samuel Tepper’s return from America, it appears that Mary Pennell had to return items that she had taken, including the Louis-Phillipe snuff box. The box was donated to the British Museum in 1944 by Maria Helena Turner, the great-grand-daughter of J.M.W. Turner's uncle, John Turner.

In 1877, the surviving beneficiaries of JMW Turner’s will brought a case against the estate of Jabez Tepper.  Tepper had bought their shares in Turner’s engravings for what he claimed was a fair price of £500 for each beneficiary.  This had netted him £2,500. When the engravings were auctioned after Tepper’s death, they fetched £35,000.  The family’s lawyers produced evidence that the engravings had been valued at £5,000 for legacy duty, so Tepper had been well aware of their real value.  The court found in the plaintiffs’ favour and ordered that the sale to Tepper be set aside.  An appeal by the Tepper estate failed.

Report of court ruling - Brief 15 December 1877 British Newspaper Archive

There is a certain irony in the coincidence that Jabez Tepper, having thwarted Turner’s plans for his inheritance, was similarly thwarted in his own. In both cases, large portions of the estate went to people they were never intended for.

CC-BY
David Meaden
Independent Researcher

Creative Commons Attribution licence

Further reading:
British Newspaper Archive for reports on the court cases involving the Turner estate, the prosecution of Mary Pennell, and Samuel Tepper’s visit to England.

Turner’s restored house in Twickenham is open to visitors.