Person:Rachel Linney (1)

Watchers
Rachel Ellen Linney
m. 29 May 1836
  1. George Linney1838 - 1904
  2. Rachel Ellen Linney1841 - 1908
  3. Susannah Linney1844 - 1905
  4. Martha Linney1844 - 1922
  5. Boy Linney1847 - 1847
  6. Samuel Linney1849 - 1849
  7. Samuel Linney1850 - 1914
  8. Jane Linney1854 - 1903
  9. William John Linney1858 - 1937
m. 17 Jun 1861
  1. George Marshall1861 - 1929
  2. William Charles Marshall1863 - 1941
  3. Sarah Ann Marshall1865 - 1938
  4. Joseph Marshall1868 - 1910
  5. John Marshall1870 - 1945
  6. Rose Elizabeth Marshall1872 - 1942
  7. Emily Eliza Marshall1874 - 1967
  8. Rachel Ellen Marshall1877 - 1949
Facts and Events
Name Rachel Ellen Linney
Gender Female
Birth[1] 31 Oct 1841 Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, England
Christening[2] 25 Dec 1842 Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, EnglandAll Saints
Census[3] 30 Mar 1851 Linslade, Buckinghamshire, EnglandLinslade Road
Census[4] 7 Apr 1861 Luton, Bedfordshire, England64 Albert Road
Marriage 17 Jun 1861 Luton, Bedfordshire, EnglandSt Mary
to George Marshall
Census[5] 2 Apr 1871 Luton, Bedfordshire, England39 Albert Road
Census[6] 3 Apr 1881 Luton, Bedfordshire, England46 Albert Road
Census[7] 5 Apr 1891 Luton, Bedfordshire, England46 Albert Road
Census[8] 31 Mar 1901 Luton, Bedfordshire, England46 Albert Road
Death[9] 18 Mar 1908 Luton, Bedfordshire, England

Childhood

Rachel Ellen Linney was born on 31st October 1841 at Leighton Buzzard in Bedfordshire. She was the daughter of a plaiter named Eliza Linney, formerly Hickinbottom, and her husband John Linney, an agricultural labourer. Rachel was the second of the couple's seven children. She was baptised in Leighton Buzzard on Christmas Day 1842. She appears in the 1851 census living with her parents and siblings at Linslade Road in Linslade, on the opposite bank of the River Ousel from Leighton Buzzard. Rachel was already working as a straw plaiter even at the age of nine.

Adulthood

By 1861 Rachel had left the Leighton Buzzard area and moved to the town of Luton. She appears in the 1861 census working as a bonnet sewer and boarding at 64 Albert Road with the family of a Joseph and Mary Marshall. Joseph's younger brother George was also living there. A couple of months after the census Rachel married George at St Mary's Church in Luton on 17th June 1861. She was nineteen when they married; he was 23.

Just under six months later they had their first child, a son named George, born at Luton. He was followed in 1863 by a son named William Charles, who was probably named after George's father William who had died earlier that year.

Over in Leighton Buzzard Rachel's maternal grandmother, Susannah Perry, died in 1864. Rachel's third child, Sarah, was born in Leighton Buzzard in 1865. Whether this was because the whole family had moved to Leighton Buzzard or simply on a visit to Rachel's parents has yet to be established. Her next child, Joseph, was born back in Luton in 1868. He was followed by a son named John in 1870.

The 1871 census finds Rachel and George and their five children living at 39 Albert Road in Luton - the same street where George and Rachel had lived with George's brother prior to their marriage. At this time Rachel was working as a straw hat sewer, whilst her husband George was also engaged in the hat industry, working as a straw hat and bonnet blocker. Rachel's father John died back in Leighton Buzzard later in 1871. Her mother would go on to marry again in 1875, with her second husband being a shepherd named George Biley.

Rachel had a daughter named Rosa Elizabeth in 1872 then a daughter named Emily Eliza in 1874, both born in Luton.

Some time between 1874 and 1877 the family left Luton and moved over fifty miles north to Peterborough. George had found work on the railways and the family lived at Bamber Street, near the city's main Peterborough North Station on the Great Northern Railway. They had a daughter named Rachel Ellen born at Peterborough in 1877. The move to Peterborough was short-lived. Some time between 1877 and 1881 they returned to Luton, settling at 46 Albert Road (their third home in that street) which was to be their home for the rest of their lives. The 1881 census finds the family living there and Rachel working as a straw hat machinist - clearly the work was becoming more mechanised. George was at this time working as an engine driver in an iron works.

Back in Leighton Buzzard, Rachel's mother's second husband George Biley died in 1881, after which Rachel's mother moved to Luton, where Rachel and several of her siblings had moved. Rachel's mother died in Luton in 1890.

Rachel's eldest son George married in 1883, and Rachel's first (of many) grandchildren was born in 1884. Rachel was 42 when she became a grandmother.

The 1891 census finds Rachel and George living with their four youngest children at 46 Albert Road, which the census records as having more than five rooms. Both George and Rachel were described as 'straw manufacturer' and as employers at this time. During the 1890s Rachel's granddaughter Esther (her daughter Sarah's eldest child) came to live with Rachel and George. In 1899 both Rachel and her granddaughter Esther gave evidence in a perjury case against one of their neighbours on Albert Road who had claimed that the reason his daughter had not attended school was that she had gone to live with relatives in Nottingham. Rachel and Esther both gave evidence that the girl in question had been living all the time in Albert Road.

The 1901 census finds Rachel and George, their youngest daughter and their granddaughter Esther living at 46 Albert Road, both working as straw hat makers. This time George was listed as an employer, whilst Rachel was a worker. Both were working at home, as was their daughter Rose. George had clearly borrowed a lot of money in order to run their hat-making business, and later in 1901 the business failed. George had to obtain an administration order for debts of nearly £45 (the average annual earnings in 1901 was £69).[11] At the time of applying for the order George was working as a stoker, having given up hat manufacturing.

George died on 6th August 1907, aged 69. Rachel survived him by just seven months. She died at home at 46 Albert Road on 18th March 1908, aged 66. She had lived to see over forty grandchildren, many of whom lived in the area around Albert Road in Luton.

References
  1. Birth certificate, in General Register Office. England and Wales Civil Registration. (London: General Register Office).
    REGISTRATION DISTRICT Leighton Buzzard
    1841 BIRTH in the Sub-district of Leighton Buzzard in the Counties of Bedford and Buckingham
    No.When and where bornName, if anySexName and surname of fatherName, surname and maiden name of motherOccupation of fatherSignature, description and residence of informantWhen registeredSignature of registrar
    191Thirty first of October 1841 at Leighton BuzzardRachel EllenGirlJohn LinneyEliza Linney, formerly HickinbottomLabourerX the mark of Eliza Linney, Mother, Leighton BuzzardTwentieth of November 1841Richard Doggett, Registrar

    This birth has been linked to the Rachel who married George Marshall on the basis of:
    A. Her marriage certificate, which tells us that she was daughter of a labourer named John Linney; and
    B. The censuses after her marriage in which she consistently said she had been born in about 1841/2 in Leighton Buzzard.

  2. Church of England. Leighton Buzzard Parish Register Transcripts, 1562-1885. (Bedford: Bedfordshire Record Office).

    ch. 25 Dec 1842, All Saints, Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire: Rachel Ellen / John & Eliza / LINNEY / labourer

  3. General Register Office. The National Archives (abbreviated TNA). England and Wales. 1851 Census Schedules. (Kew, Richmond, Greater London TW9 4DU, United Kingdom)
    Class HO107; Piece 1756; Folio 235; Page 15, 30 Mar 1851.

    Address: Linslade Road, Linslade, Buckinghamshire
    John Linney, head, married, male, 37 [1813/4], Farm Labourer, b. Leighton, Bedfordshire
    Eliza Linney, wife, married, female, 35 [1815/6], b. Leighton, Bedfordshire
    George Linney, son, male, 12 [1838/9], Farm Boy, b. Leighton, Bedfordshire
    Rachel Linney, daughter, female, 9 [1841/2], Plaitter, b. Leighton, Bedfordshire
    Martha Linney, daughter, female, 5 [1845/6], b. Leighton, Bedfordshire
    Susan Linney, daughter, female, 5 [1845/6], b. Leighton, Bedfordshire
    Samuel Linney, son, male, 8 months [1850], b. Bossington Lane, Linslade, Buckinghamshire

  4. General Register Office. The National Archives (abbreviated TNA). 1861 Census Schedules for England and Wales, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. (Kew, Richmond, Greater London TW9 4DU, United Kingdom)
    Class RG9; Piece 1012; Folio 123; Page 40, 7 Apr 1861.

    Address: 64 Albert Road, Luton, Bedfordshire
    Joseph Marshall, head, married, male, 29 [1831/2], Straw plait manufacturer, b. Kings Walden, Hertfordshire
    Mary Marshall, wife, married, female, 29 [1831/2], Straw plait manufacturer, b. Harpenden, Hertfordshire
    Eliza Marshall, daughter, female, 5 [1855/6], Scholar, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    George Marshall, son, male, 3 [1857/8], Scholar, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    John Marshall, son, 6m [1860], b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    George Marshall, brother, unmarried, male, 23 [1837/8], Blocker, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    Hannah Barker, boarder, widow, female, 60 [1800/1], Platter, b. Harpenden, Hertfordshire
    Maria Biggs, boarder, female, 14 [1846/7], Bonnet sewer, b. Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire
    Rachel Leiney, boarder, unmarried, female, 19 [1841/2], Bonnet sewer, b. Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire
    Charles Martin, boarder, unmarried, male, 17 [1843/4], Labourer, b. Luton, Bedfordshire

  5. General Register Office. The National Archives (abbreviated TNA). England and Wales. 1871 Census Schedules. (Kew, Richmond, Greater London TW9 4DU, United Kingdom)
    Class RG10; Piece 1573; Folio 18; Page 27, 2 Apr 1871.

    Address: 39 Albert Road, Luton, Bedfordshire
    George Marshall, head, married, male, 33 [1837/8], Straw hat & bonnet blocker, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    Rachael Marshall, wife, married, female, 29 [1841/2], Straw hat sewer, b. Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire
    George Marshall, son, male, 9 [1861/2], Scholar, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    William C. Marshall, son, male, 7 [1863/4], Scholar, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    Sarah Marshall, daughter, female, 5 [1865/6], Scholar, b. Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire
    Joseph Marshall, son, male, 2 [1868/9], b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    John Marshall, son, male, 6m [1870], b. Luton, Bedfordshire

  6. General Register Office. The National Archives (abbreviated TNA). 1881 Census Schedules for England and Wales, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands: . (Kew, Richmond, Greater London TW9 4DU, United Kingdom)
    Class RG11; Piece 1651; Folio 76; Page 16, 3 Apr 1881.

    Address: 46 Albert Road, Luton, Bedfordshire
    George Marshall, head, married, male, 43 [1837/8], Engine driver at iron works, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    Rachael E. Marshall, wife, married, female, 39 [1841/2], Straw hat machinist, b. Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire
    George Marshall, son, unmarried, male, 19 [1861/2], Straw hat blocker, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    William C. Marshall, son, male, 17 [1863/4], Bricklayer, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    Sarah Marshall, daughter, female, 15 [1865/6], Straw hat machinist, b. Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire
    Joseph Marshall, son, male, 13 [1867/8], Domestic servant, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    John Marshall, son, male, 10 [1870/1], Scholar, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    Rose E. Marshall, daughter, female, 8 [1872/3], Scholar, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    Emily E. Marshall, daughter, female, 6 [1874/5], Scholar, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    Rachael E. Marshall, daughter, female, 4 [1876/7], Scholar, b. Peterborough, Northamptonshire

  7. General Register Office. The National Archives (abbreviated TNA). 1891 Census Schedules for England and Wales, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. (Kew, Richmond, Greater London TW9 4DU, United Kingdom)
    Class RG12; Piece 1273; Folio 93; Page 24, 5 Apr 1891.

    Address: 46 Albert Road, Luton, Bedfordshire
    5+ rooms occupied
    George Marshall, head, married, male, 53 [1837/8], Straw manufacturer, employer, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    Rachel Marshall, wife, married, female, 49 [1841/2], Straw manufacturer, employer, b. Leighton Buz, Bedfordshire
    John Marshall, son, single, male, 20 [1870/1], Bricklayer, employed, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    Rose Marshall, daughter, single, female, 18 [1872/3], Straw hat machinist, employed, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    Emily Marshall, daughter, single, female, 16 [1874/5], Straw hat machinist, employed, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    Rachel Marshall, daughter, single, female, 14 [1876/7], Straw hat finisher, employed, b. Peterborough, Northamptonshire

  8. General Register Office. The National Archives (abbreviated TNA). England and Wales. 1901 Census Schedules: also for the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. (Kew, Richmond, Greater London TW9 4DU, United Kingdom)
    Class RG13; Piece 1516; Folio 105; Page 24, 31 Mar 1901.

    Address: 46 Albert Road, Luton, Bedfordshire
    5+ rooms occupied
    George Marshall, head, married, male, 63 [1837/8], Straw hat maker, employer, working at home, b. Flint Houses nr. Luton, Bedfordshire
    E. Marshall, wife, married, female, 59 [1841/2], Straw hat maker, worker, working at home, b. Leighton, Bedfordshire
    Rose Marshall, daughter, single, female, 28 [1872/3], Straw hat maker, worker, working at home, b. Luton, Bedfordshire
    Esther Dexter, granddaughter, single, female, 15 [1885/6], b. Luton, Bedfordshire

  9. Death certificate, in General Register Office. England and Wales Civil Registration. (London: General Register Office).
    Registration District Luton
    1908 DEATH in the Sub-district of Luton in the County of Bedford
    No.When and where diedName and surnameSexAgeOccupationCause of deathSignature, description and residence of informantWhen registeredSignature of registrar
    31Eighteenth March 1908, 46 Albert Road, Luton UDRachel Ellen MarshallFemale66 yearsWidow of George Marshall, Hat BlockerPneumonia 14 days, Syncopes, Certified by C.J. Lewis M.R.C.S.J. Marshall, Son, Present at the death, 44 Cambridge Street, Luton19 March 1908Edward Barnard
  10.   Luton Times and Advertiser, Friday 5th May 1899
    ALLEGED PERJURY IN THE LUTON COURT.
    DEFENDANTS COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.
    The magistrates at the Borough Court on Wednesday were the Mayor (in the chair), Mr. J. Higgins, Mr. W. Webb, and Mr. E. Oakley. The morning sitting was occupied by the hearing of the following case:
    THOMAS KING, tinman, of Albert-road, was charged with committing corrupt perjury at the Borough Court on April 4 in a School Board prosecution, when he was summoned for the non-attendance of his child, Nellie King. HENRY MARKS BALDWIN, of 87, Seymour-street, Nottingham, a brother-in-law, was similarly charged.
    Mr. F.W. Beck appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. H.W. Lathom defended.
    In opening King's case, Mr. Beck said the cases would have to be taken separately, because each statement would have to be taken by itself. He would however, open the whole circumstances, though first of all he would explain what were the elements in a case of perjury. First, the oath had to be properly administered to the person charged; secondly, it had to be a court of competent jurisdiction; thirdly, the statement must be material to the issue, i.e., it must be material to the question before the Court, and it must be false. Now the only point he need dwell upon was whether or not the statement in this case was material to the issue. A mere lie told in regard to a matter which was entirely irrelevant to the point before the Court would not be perjury, but if it affected the main question before the Court, then of course it was perjury. Issue in this sense did not mean the result of the case, otherwise it would follow that a man could not be prosecuted for perjury unless his evidence was believed and acted upon. It frequently happened that men who committed perjury were not believed and were at once ordered into custody, so that material to the issue meant material to the question before the Court. Coming to the facts, Mr Beck said the defendant King was charged before the Court on April 4th with an offence against the Elementary Education Acts by not sending his child Nellie to school between February 17th and March 17th, and the case having been stated against him by the School Attendance Officer, King went into the box and stated - "My daughter came home on the 17th March. Baldwin brought it. She had been at Nottingham two years before that." Baldwin was King's brother-in-law, and he was also called, his words being practically to the same effect. It would appear to them at once that that was a statement material to the issue, because if it were true that the child came home on the 17th and had been at Nottingham for two years before that, it was evident that there would be no jurisdiction on the part of the Luton magistrates to punish him for not sending her. The statement went to the very root of the question before the Court, and that being so he had to prove it was untrue. He should call a number of witnesses who saw the child constantly between Christmas and the 17th March.
    The Clerk asked whether the witnesses ought to go out of Court?
    Mr. Lathom thought not, as he did not dispute the facts.
    Mr. Beck said that would shorten it considerably. There was no doubt about the child not being at Nottingham. There was no doubt about a charge of perjury being made out, and he need not enlarge upon the seriousness of a charge of this kind. Perjury was only too rife in the Courts, and it was the duty of any public authority discovering so clear a case to bring it before the Courts. The only surprise was that a man could be so reckless and foolish as to deliberately and wilfully commit perjury with regard to so trumpery a matter, for the very utmost fine could only be 5s. He asked them, when they had heard the evidence, to commit the defendants for trial at the Assizes.
    Mr. W. Austin said that on April 4 he was sitting as Clerk to the Court, when the magistrates were Mr. Phillips and Mr. Cumberland. Defendant was before the Court charged with habitually neglecting to send his child to school between February 17 and March 17. Before being sworn defendant made a statement, and in consequence called a witness named Baldwin in proof. King then elected to give evidence on oath, and was sworn in the usual way by witness. He took a note of what was material to the issue. It was as follows - "Thomas King, 27, Albert-road, Luton. Child came home 17th March. Baldwin brought it. She had been at Nottingham for two years before that."
    Cross-examined by Mr. Lathom: Did he give evidence on his own request, or did you ask him to repeat his statement? - As far as my recollection goes, the statement he made was so serious a contradiction of what was said that I asked King if he would like to go into the box and give evidence himself. He replied "Certainly," and with great readiness he went into the box, was sworn in the usual way, and gave evidence.
    Did you warn him that he might put himself into this present serious position? - I told him it would be a serious position.
    By Mr. Beck: Before defendant gave evidence I understand Baldwin was called upon and gave evidence. Had you said anything to Baldwin in the nature of a warning and in the hearing of defendant? - I did.
    You cautioned Baldwin during the time he was giving evidence, and it was administered in the hearing of the defendant and before he went into the box himself? - Yes.
    Mary Annie Cumberland, 25, Albert-road, said she lived next door to defendant and knew the child Nellie King, his daughter. She had seen the child in Luton ever since she went to live in Albert-road in January, 1898, down to March 17.
    She had seen her every day, except one day when she was taken to Nottingham Goose Fair. She had never been away from home from last Christmas to March 17. King had frequently spoken to witness about the child not going to school, and had said that he thought Mr. Sell, the School Attendance Officer, must have forgotten the child.
    Mr. Beck: He is pretty well known in Albert-road, I expect. (Laughter).
    Esther Dexter, a little girl of 13 years of age, living with her grandparents at 46, Albert-road, said that she knew Nellie King, and had played with her nearly every day since Christmas and between March 17. She went away two years ago for about 3 months, and again in October for a day.
    Mr. Beck: With those exceptions, she has not been away? - Not since them [sic].
    How many children has Mr. King? - Four. I know them all. Nellie was the oldest, and about 6 weeks ago began going to a private school.
    Had she been to school before that time? - No.
    As she left the box Mr. Beck remarked, "Thank you. I wish all our witnesses were as bright as you are."
    Lillian Marshall (11), 31, Cumberland-street, said she knew Nellie King and the rest of the family. She saw Nellie in Luton between Christmas and March nearly every day. They had played together.
    Mrs. Marshall, living at 46, Albert-road, and keeping a shop next door to defendant, said she had seen Nellie King frequently between Christmas and March. She had been at home the whole of the time.
    This concluded the case against King.
    GEORGE MARKS BALDWIN, of 87, Seymour-street, Nottingham, was then charged.
    Mr. Beck said the alleged perjury was committed on the same occasion, but the words were slightly different. The allegation was that Baldwin stated that Nellie King, his niece, and daughter of defendant, had lived with him at Nottingham for two years prior to March 17, and he went on to say, "I brought her myself to Luton 3 weeks ago next Friday, arriving here at 4 o'clock. I am a mail driver on 3 week's leave of absence. Nellie King last went to school on March 15 last at St. Matthias' Schools, Nottingham." They had there, said Mr. Beck, three definite statements - (1) that the child had been at Nottingham 2 years, (2) that he brought her home to Luton on March 17; and that she had been to school there. He intended showing that they were absolutely false.
    Mr. W. Austin repeated his evidence as to what occurred at the last Court, and produced his notes, taken at the time, of the evidence given by Baldwin. It corresponded with the statement made by Mr. Beck.
    Mr Beck then called Thomas Cousins, head teacher of St. Matthias' School, Nottingham.
    Is it Matthias, or St. Matthias? - St. Matthias.
    Mr Beck: Thank you; we have here Matthias. Policemen are not respectful enough: they don't take notice of saints, there are so many of them (laughter).
    Mr Cousins produced the admission register of the school, sowing all admissions since June 20th 1888. It was arranged alphabetically and from day to day. The name of Nellie King did not appear in the book from beginning to end. He was the headmaster on March 15 and was present, and no child of that name attended.
    Mr Lathom did not cross-examine, and Mr H.L. Sell, school attendance officer at Luton, next went into the box. He stated that on March 17 he saw a child going into King's house, and believing it was Nellie King he spoke to Mr. King. He did not recognise the child as Nellie King.
    Mr Beck said they would not then trouble about that evidence for it was not material.
    Mrs E.L. Neville, of 87, Seymour-street, Nottingham, was next called, Mr. Beck stating that he was sorry to have to call her against her brother, but he was obliged to do so. She was then questioned, and in reply to Mr. Beck stated that the defendant Baldwin lived with her and was employed by her husband as a mail cart driver. Baldwin came to Luton some time about March 17, but closely questioned she said it was for a week end. He came up for the Easter holiday on Easter Sunday.
    Mr Beck: Don't make it more difficult for us than you need. Was it on Easter Sunday? - Yes.
    You know for certain it was that day? - Yes.
    Well, now, Easter Sunday was April 2. Did you brother come to Luton on March 17th? - Not that I am aware of.
    Are you certain? - No, but I do not know that he came away on that day.
    He is employed by your husband. If he had come on any other day but Easter Sunday should you have known? - No, I should not.
    In answer to further questions, the witness said she knew Nellie King, who had been at her house, but she came back to Luton at the beginning of last summer. Since then she had only been down for one day in October - the day of the Goose Fair.
    The Mayor said that the witness knew she must tell the truth, and he felt constrained to say that they sympathised with her. It was very painful for her to be in that position.
    Mr Beck then called the same witness as appeared in the prosecution against King. Mrs Cumberland added that she saw Baldwin at Easter. He came to visit King, and arrived on the Sunday morning.
    This concluded the case for the prosecution.
    Mr Lathom asked the Bench if they had decided to commit.
    The Mayor: Upon the evidence there is no alternative.
    Mr Lathom: I was afraid not. Therefore I don't propose to address the Bench at all. I think the issue is plain.
    Defendants had nothing to say, and the Bench committed both of them to take their trial at the next assizes on June 20.
    Mr Lathom applied for bail.
    Mr Beck did not object, adding that the application was reasonable.
    The request was acceded to on defendant's entering into a bond of £20 each, and a surety of £10 each.
    Later the same evening defendants were admitted to bail before Mr J. Higgins, William Mimms, of Inkerman street, becoming surety for King, and Charles Henry Wildman for Baldwin.
  11. Measuring Worth, accessed 5 May 2014: average UK earnings in 1901 £68.92, average earnings in 1902 £69.23.