top of page
George - was he a poacher?
I have searched newspaper stories between 1879 - 1881 in both Sussex and Kent to try and find out whether anything is mentioned in a newspaper about a George Chatfield who might have done something to force him to change his name to Smith, and for Bridget to become Frances.
​
Their son Alfred Horace Chatfield is born 2 January 1879 and at that time the family are living at Halls Green, Weald, Sevenoaks. By the 1881 census they have become George and Frances Smith and are living in East Sutton, Kent. Their son Walter is born in East Sutton on 23 August 1881 and is named Walter Smith.
​
​
The article above is taken from the Sevenoaks Chronicle and Kentish Advertiser. It is dated 4 March 1881, and states that a George Chatfield has been charged with trespassing. He was poaching in Sevenoaks Wood and in possession of a firearm. He apparently declared it was his first time, but the court were told he was a known poacher. It would seem that he did not turn up to court and in his absence was fined £2, or if he defaulted a jail term. Did he default? Did he make a runner to avoid the £2 fine? Is this even him?
​
We certainly know that George and Bridget were living in Sevenoaks in January 1879 when Alfred was born, and we know they were using the names George and Bridget Chatfield at that time, because their real names are mentioned on his birth certificate. If this isn't him, then what happened to make them change their names? If it is him, was a £2 fine or one month in jail enough to cause them to take such drastic measures? Research suggests that £2 was possibly a months wages to an agricultural labourer in 1881. Maybe they just did not have the money so a jail term was inevitable. Had he served it then Bridget, with 3 young children, would have been destitute. There was no state aid in 1881, and it is likely she would have ended up in the workhouse where further research shows she had already been before ......
bottom of page