98 High Street

The Wright Family

Known later as Thelmore House, 98 High Street was first occupied by Thomas Edwin Wright, the son of school master John Henry William Wright, who taught amongst other places, at the Industrial School in Sheppey. Thomas Edwin was a grocer and wine merchant and is listed as living at the property with his wife, Miriam Sophia (whose father was also a school teacher), for 30 years before the premises were taken over by their second son, Edward Henry, in 1891.

Thomas and Miriam were still living in West Malling at this time but the Kelly’s directory for 1891 lists them as living at Lucknow (number 119), a little way up the High Street. However, digging a little deeper, we can see that Thomas’ and Miriam’s stay at Lucknow was a very short lived visit as migration documents for a Thomas E Wright (from Kent) and his wife arriving at New York that same year, on route to California, show that the couple had chosen to emigrate permanently. Thomas lived the rest of his life in the US, passing away in San Diego in 1912 – it is not yet known when Miriam died.

We should therefore assume that Edward Henry took over the business at this time – an assumption supported by a newspaper notice from 1892 announcing his successful application for an alcohol licence, essential for the business and presumably previously had been held by his father, Thomas.

Mr Bradbury Norton applied on behalf of Edward Henry Wright of West Malling for a certificate authorising him to apply for, and hold an excise licence for the sale of beer, ale and porter by retail to be drunk or consumed off the premises now occupied by him, and situate in the High Street, West Malling. Evidence having been given by Mr. Wright, the chairman said the application would be granted.

By the time we reach the 1901 census Edward has left the property, having moved to Gravesend where he is now plying his trade as a fishmonger. However, despite finding the property was now occupied by Sydney Gifford, formerly grocer at 39-41 High Street, this didn’t mark the end of the Wright family at Thelmore as Sydney was in fact married to Thomas’ daughter and Edward’s sister, Miriam Edith Wright.

The obviously close link between the family and the property is highlighted by the fact that at least two of Sydney and Miriam’s children chose to hold their wedding receptions at Thelmore…

MR B. G. BELLAMY & MISS I. W. GIFFORD : MALLING.
St. Mary’s Church, West Malling, was on Tuesday the scene of a pretty wedding which aroused widespread interest in the neighbourhood. The contracting parties were Basil Gervase, second son of Mr. and Mrs. Charles H. Bellamy of Northern France, and later of Manchester, and Ida Winifred, third daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Sydney Gifford, of Thelmore, West Malling…After the ceremony a reception was held at Thelmore where about 60 guests assembled to congratulate the happy couple…
Kent Messenger – Saturday 2 August 1913
***

WEDDING BELLS
–
MR. H. G. SPURGEN-MISS M. GIFFORD.
At St. Mary’s Church, West Malling, on Tuesday Mr H. G. Spurgen, eldest son of Alderman and Mrs. George Spurgen, of Folkestone, was married to Miss M. Gifford, second daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Sydney Gifford, of West Malling…
A reception was afterwards held at Thelmore, the residence of the bride’s parents.
Folkestone Herald – Saturday 22 September 1917
***

We can see from the photo below that to the right of Thelmore, where West Malling Dry Cleaners currently are, Gifford also had a livery, where Edith Goodger can remember the horses used by the fire brigade and hearse were stabled.

Disputed Election – 1855

Thomas Edwin obviously became a respected figure in West Malling and as a result, was elected to be Guardian of the Poor for the parish – a voluntary post but one that carried a certain amount of prestige and local influence. So much so, it would seem, that the election result was disputed and the repercussions of a subsequent enquiry would ultimately lead to a libel case that would be heard at the High Court of Justice.

The circumstances that led to this seemingly innocuous election resulting in such drastic action are quite complicated, so it will probably help if we introduce the key characters involved in the case at the start.

Thomas Edwin Wright (grocer living and working from 98 High Street) – winner of the election to become Guardian of the Poor
George Phillips – the candidate opposing Thomas and seeking re-election to the post of Guardian of the Poor
Edward Vesey Bligh – West Malling JP (Justice of the Peace / Magistrate) who we later learn had promised his vote/support for Phillips at the election

Firstly, we should look at the election where Thomas Wright was declared the winner by a small majority of just four votes. However, a short while later, information was presented to the local justices suggesting that a local resident, Thomas Wickham, had wilfully committed fraud in order to affect the result of the vote. Edward V Bligh chaired the case despite objections by Wickham’s solicitor on the grounds that Bligh had personal interests in the case – Wickham was found guilty and fined the princely sum of 40 shillings (approx. £275 in 2023) plus costs. As a result of this verdict, an application was made on behalf of George Phillips, requesting an enquiry into the election as a whole in order to determine whether the seven voting discrepancies that had come to light during this case may not be the only foul play and if the result should therefore be overturned.

A Government Board rightly saw fit to proceed with an enquiry and one of the inspectors decided that he should examine not just the voting slips in question, but all of them to confirm their validity. In doing so, he noticed another discrepancy regarding the voting slip of the very man who had passed sentence on Wickham – Justice Edward V Bligh.

Bligh was subsequently asked why the voting paper that bore his name was not in his handwriting but appeared to have been filled in by his son, Lodovick Edward, who lived with his father and was also a magistrate. He acknowledged that this was the case but argued that this was usual practice when he was away from home on business. Despite his explanation, Bligh was reminded that voting by proxy was not allowed and his vote would therefore also need to be discounted.

Unsurprisingly, this twist of circumstance caught the attention of the local press and the Kent and Sussex Times wrote an article under the title, ‘”Snaps and Snarls” and the West Malling Election’, an article which alluded to certain members of the community taking advantage of their position and ‘poor people’s ignorance’ to try and ‘pitchfork Mr Phillips into office again, despite the wish of the majority of residents’. The article went on to single out several of West Malling’s notable residents including Lady Caroline Nevill, Rev. Timmins and, somewhat unsurprisingly, Edward V Bligh as the chief culprits in a bid to manipulate the election results and also interfering in the Board’s attempt to investigate the issue further.

It is worth noting at this point that sitting alongside Edward V Bligh on the Bench for the case of Thomas Wickham was Bligh’s brother-in-law Hon R P Nevill, son of Lady Caroline – both of whom had been canvassing and working for Mr Phillips prior to the election.

Although the editor of the Kent and Sussex Times chose to pay in court a customary sum of 40s as a means of acknowledging the accusation brought against him, he made it very clear that this act was in no way an admission of guilt on his part and that he felt the need for an apology was unnecessary. Such a slur on Bligh’s name could not go unchallenged and he therefore proceeded to sue the editor for libel. I am not sure if, at the time of taking this action, Bligh would have continued so enthusiastically if he had realised quite how his cross examination in court would add to the question marks that had been placed upon his character as well as other members of the community. The following is a brief excerpt of the Bligh’s cross examination…

Q. Did you find Mr. Bligh, that there were 72 votes recorded for Mr Phillips disallowed?
A. I know a great number were disallowed on both sides.
Q. Did you not find – I must ask this, for it is a question of importance – published in the very paper containing the alleged libel that voting papers were left at person’s houses with initials against the name of Mr. Phillips at the time they were left?
A. I found nothing. I made no enquiries. Sixty or seventy votes were struck off on account of informalities. I did not know what votes were struck off.
Q. I did not ask you that. I am asking you whether it was not proved that initials were put on voting papers against the name Mr Phillips before they were left at people’s houses?
A. No.
Q. Well, then, was it after they were left?
A. I understand that some initials were placed on papers so as to show voters where to vote.

When it came to the jury making a decision on the appropriate verdict, the complexity of the case made it difficult to achieve a unanimous decision – one juror even enquired as to how he could decide on a case where the technicalities of the law would point to libel whereas the underlying moral case of freedom of speech and publishing what was in fact the truth should in fact prevail, especially in light of the underhanded tactics used by those supporting Mr Phillips in the election. The technicalities of law ultimately won the day and the publisher was found guilty but tellingly, the judge saw fit to only fine him the amount he had already paid in court as a pre-meditated gesture, plus costs, but without having to apologise – a sensible decision that gave both parties enough ammunition to declare themselves winners in their own way and allowed them both to move on from the dispute.

And so to the decision of who would be elected as Guardian of the Poor for West Malling – despite the best efforts of several members of the social elite in the town, this honour was given to High Street grocer, Thomas Edwin Wright.