Richard Oyes, the dodgy overseer

Richard Oyes, of Whitehaven, is the elephant in the room of an interesting court case, in 1796. For while he was the reason five magistrates strayed from the path of virtue to that of corruption, he seems outwardly to have ‘got away with it’.

Richard Oyes was born about 1754. All I could see of his family life was that he married Mary Steele at St Nicholas, Whitehaven, on August 4, 1787.

Assuming there was no other Richard in Whitehaven… in 1785, he gave £1 10s to Whitehaven Infirmary. And in 1791, he had a fire insurance policy in King Street, and is listed as a flax dealer. A similar policy two years later refers to property in King Street and Strand Street.

Working for Wicked Jimmy

From 1792-96, Richard Oyes was a salaried official at the Reckoning House, Whitehaven – a reckoning house being a place where local workers went to pick up their wages. The man providing the cash was likely Sir James Lowther.

For sure, in 1793, Richard Oyes gave an account of Whitehaven small rents received for the Whitehaven Castle Estate (since Pentecost).

 Whitehaven Castle belonged to the Lowthers: at that time, Sir James Lowther, later Earl of Lonsdale – aka Wicked Jimmy, whose name lives on as a byword for political corruption.

Working for Wicked Jimmy may not have made a person themselves dishonourable, but the association didn’t exactly win them many friends in the local population.

Overseer of the poor

And circa 1773, Richard Oyes was appointed an overseer of the poor of Whitehaven.

As an overseer (one of several in the parish of St Bees), Richard Oyes would have collected rates and distributed money to those in need.

However, according to The Business of News in England, 1760–1820:

In 17 years, according to the Cumberland Pacquet and later prosecutions between 1794 and 1796, Oyes extorted an ‘extravagant rate’ from inhabitants and refused to produce accounts – while the poor of the parish went hungry.

Lonsdale meanwhile perpetually held up the collection of poor relief. In one case, rates were suspended when it was discovered that two housekeepers’ names had been entered in error instead of two householders’ names.

Business News

Dragging others in

In 1794, Oyes was up for re-election as overseer. Later newspaper reports say his re-appointment was ‘universally opposed by the whole parish’. But the decision fell to five local magistrates: John Skelton, Thomas Denton, Anthony Peat, William Kirkbank, and Thomas Harrington.

It was to land them in court, accused of corruption.

It was two years later, in August 1796, that the five JPs appeared before a jury at Lancaster Assizes, in a case brought by ‘the inhabitants of Whitehaven’.

The case had been scheduled to be heard at Carlisle, but their attorneys were able to get it moved because:

such and undue and unfavourable impression had been conceived against the defendants that they could not with safety and propriety be tried before a Special Jury in Cumberland.

The allegation was that Richard Oyes wished to be re-appointed oversee of the poor of Whitehaven, so that he might keep (for his own use) £2,000 raised from the rates (for the poor). He reckoned the money was due to him.

That’s more than £220,000 in today’s values.

Not surprisingly, the ratepayers (and poor) of Whitehaven were less than happy about this. And they had the backing of the Press, in the form of the Cumberland Pacquet and Ware’s Whitehaven Advertiser, started by stationer John Ware in 1774.

The court case

The charge against the five magistrates was that they knew Richard Oyes wanted to be re-appointed overseer to help himself to the £2,000 and:

wickedly and corruptly’ conspired and agreed to re-appoint Oyes.

The hearing was reported by the Reading Mercury and Chester Chronicle.

The prosecution called ten witnesses, who proved the allegations and developed the conspiracy charge.

Mr Serjeant Cockell, for the defendants, said they’d acted out of ignorance and their hearts were pure. He said infamy would be attached to them if found guilty. 

But he called no witnesses, so the prosecutor’s case stood uncontradicted.

The judge, Mr Justice Lawrence, summed up ‘in a most impartial manner’ and ‘in a speech of great perspicuity’ pointed out to the jury several particulars which proved the defendants had not acted ignorantly, but with the wilful and corrupt intent stated in the information. 

The trial lasted from 9h till 17h. The jury took about one minute to find them guilty.

The consequences

Three months after the Lancaster trial, in November 1796, John Skelton, Thomas Denton, Anthony Peat, William Kirkbank, and Thomas Harrington were up before the King’s Bench, in London, for judgement.

Lord Kenyon said he would suspend passing judgement provided the defendants agreed to ‘go before the Master’ and undertake to pay (all) the prosecution costs. 

Furthermore, to prevent an application to the Chancellor, they should undertake to have their names struck out of the commission of the peace, which the defendants readily agreed to do.

(That sounds like ‘jump and save us the hassle of pushing you’).

In its account of the second hearing, the Norfolk Chronicle ends with:

’Note: the above supposed to originate in some of Lord Lonsdale’s Northern Politics’.

Norfolk Chronicle

According to The Business of News in England, 1760–1820:

‘A direct result of the case was that a bill was brought in Parliament to more effectively manage parish overseers in levying poor rates.’

Business News

The aftermath

What isn’t mentioned in any of these sources is the obvious question: what about Richard Oyes?

Having persuaded the five JPs to dishonour themselves on his behalf, they were taken to court. But Richard?

Well, he may not have got his overseer role back (Do not pass Go, do not collect £2,000). But by 1798 (for sure) Richard Oyes was working as clerk to Whitehaven magistrates. So it doesn’t seem to have harmed his career! 

Richard Oyes died in Whitehaven in 1809, aged 55. He left all his estate to his wife Mary (and thence to his ‘several first cousins,’ so no children). His first will, written in 1797, mentions shipping shares: he wasn’t hard-up.

As for the disgraced magistrates (most of whom had only been sworn as JPs in 1793)… 

Anthony Peat was to inherit Salmon Hall, Camerton, from his father in 1798 – and land at Bowness on Solway with it.

A year earlier, his name appears with several others (John Christian Curwen, Edward Christian, Richard Graham, Sir Wilfred Lawson, Humphrey Senhouse – all prominent individuals) as defendants in a court case brought by ‘James (Lowther) Earl of Lonsdale and another’.

However

Around the time he had to give up being a JP (November 1796), Anthony Peat appears on a list of names for the King’s approval as deputy lieutenants of Cumberland.

The list was submitted by James Lowther.