Now! Then! Darlington iron magnate William Barningham is portrayed for a probate court from the diary of a beneficiary of his decision to leave his daughter little and his wife nothing of £450,000

13 March 1884: Darlington iron magnate William Barningham is portrayed for a probate court from the diary of a beneficiary of his decision to leave his daughter little and his wife nothing of £450,000

Daily Gazette For Middlesbrough. 1884/03/14. The Barningham Will Suit. Middlesbrough. Get it:

Excerpt

Thomas Barningham, the nephew of the testator, and manager of the Darlington Ironworks, was cross-examined by Mr Inderwick. There were entries in the diary as to his treatment of his wife [post-deceased]. Had seen a bandage round her head. There was an entry, “Very ill through uncle’s behaviour.” He objected to having meat cooked in the house. He used to have oatmeal and rice for breakfast. Did not hear him say that a man could get on very well with eating corn and beans like horses. Had heard that his wife and daughter used to lock themselves up owing to his violence. When he had been in drink he had acted cruelly towards his wife. There was a suggestion that they should be separated, but the separation was not effected. Both of them were wilful, and they lived a cat-and-dog life. It was not true that he banished his wife and daughter from the house for no reason whatever. In 1870 he became a total abstainer. He gave his wife an enamelled watch, but scratched out her initials from the case. Had not heard that he burnt out her initials from the table linen, but would not be surprised. He was very pleased at the birth of his daughter, and was exceedingly attached to her. He sent her to school at Paris. His daughter used to take up his food to his room, but after 1881 she ceased to do so, as he was afraid of her. Something was said about poison. Had heard that he on one occasion threw some coals on the dining room table. Miss Barningham treated her father in a way he did not like by leaving him sitting alone night after night. His wife and daughter occupied another part of the house. He left Springfield in December 1882. Francis Thomas Steavenson, solicitor and Mayor of Darlington, said that he pointed out to the deceased that no provision was made for his wife. Referring to his nephew, the deceased said that Tom was a hard worker, and that if he married his daughter he would leave him every penny he possessed. Witness afterwards spoke to Tom about it, but he declined the proposal on the ground that he felt it would not be productive of happiness. [Deceased sane, settlement awarded £150K and costs to the daughter.]

Order the book

Subscribe to the free daily email

To facilitate reading, the spelling and punctuation of elderly excerpts have generally been modernised, and distracting excision scars concealed. My selections, translations, and editions are copyright.

Abbreviations

Comment

A net estate of £450K would have been worth roughly £46M in mid-2024. For the compromise settlement see e.g. The Times (Times 1884/03/15).

Grace’s Guide and the modern Northern Echo have found an article – presumably the Liverpool Echo one, which I haven’t seen – which mentions my favourite meat, mutton:

During the latter portion of the time that Mr. and Mrs. Barningham lived together they never had any conversation, occupied separate rooms, and in fact lived entirely separate lives. The daughter spent a considerable portion of her time with Mrs. Barningham, and on more than one occasion when Mr. Barningham was sitting alone and miserable in his room music and singing were going on in the wife’s apartments. The man who could project and carry on a great industry and amass wealth, sat downstairs nursing his dark and implacable temper. He once gave his wife a watch, and afterwards erased her initials from it “because he was distressed at the sight of anything which suggested a connection between his name and that of his wife.” He declared that he would give £10,000 to be separated from her, although her character was unimpeachable. He threw a can of water over her because she dared to take the first cut of mutton at dinner. At another time this angel of the house went into the room where his wife and daughter were dining and threw a scuttleful of coals upon the table. He excluded his wife and daughter from his deathbed, and although remonstrated with by minister and doctor refused to be reconciled because “it would look like giving in.” It is recorded that his daughter once called him “a brute,” and it does not seem that the appellation, though unkind, was altogether undeserved.

If anyone has a scan of the mutton article, please send it in. The scuttle-full of coal appears inter alia in London’s Standard.

Mr Barningham poisoning the good people of Pendleton.

Something to say? Get in touch

Original

THE BARNINGHAM WILL SUIT.
In the Probate Division of the High Court of Justice on Thursday Sir James Hannan and a special jury resumed the hearing of the case of Hankinson and another v. Barningham and others. It had reference to the testamentary dispositions of the late Mr Wm. Barningham, a large ironmaster, of Pendleton and Darlington, who died on November 3, 1882, possessed of £495,000.
Upon the case being resumed, Mr Thomas Barningham, the nephew of the testator, and manager of the Darlington Ironworks, was cross-examined by Mr Inderwick, Q.C. It was stated that Mrs Barningham died on the 13th of November last year very suddenly.
Mr Inderwick, Q.C., said to the learned Judge that she had died so suddenly that her evidence, of course, had not been taken.
Cross-examination continued: There were entries in the diary as to his treatment of his wife. Had seen a bandage round her head. There was an entry, “Very ill through uncle’s behaviour.” Should not say that would be a proper description for the last ten years. His outbursts of temper were only occasional. He objected to having meat cooked in the house. He used to have oatmeal and rice for breakfast. Did not hear him say that a man could get on very well with eating corn and beans like horses. Had heard that his wife and daughter used to lock themselves up owing to his violence. When he had been in drink he had acted cruelly towards his wife; but he was all right when he calmed down. There was a suggestion that they should be separated; but the separation was not effected. Both of them were wilful, and they lived a cat and dog life. It was not true that he banished his wife and daughter from the house for no reason whatever. In 1870 he became a total abstainer. He gave his wife an enamelled watch, but scratched out her initials from the case. Had not heard that he burnt out her initials from the table linen, but would not be surprised if he had done so. He was very pleased and delighted at the birth of his daughter, and was exceedingly attached to her in fact, as much as anyone could be. There were a number of letters in which he spoke in the highest terms of his daughter. He sent her to school at Paris, and she corresponded with him in French and Italian. Had never heard until these proceedings commenced of any disposition of the testator’s property in favour of his wife; nor did he learn until recently that he intended to leave her £10,000 and the household furniture. His daughter used to take up his food to his room; but after 1881 she ceased to do so, as he was afraid of her. Something was said about poison. Had heard that he on one occasion threw some coals on the dining room table. His treatment of his daughter was very strange.
What had the daughter done to justify this treatment?-Up to 1880 the relations between her father and herself were good. Afterwards she became a party to the life at Springfield. She was highly educated, and would take her mother’s part.
But can you state anything that the daughter did to justify the course of conduct which her father acted towards her? – Miss Barningham treated her father in a way he did not like.
How? – By leaving him sitting alone night after night.
Did she tell you that her father ordered her out of the room?-I have little doubt he did occasionally, on account of her manner.
Cross-examination continued: His wife and daughter occupied another part of the house, as they could not agree. He left Springfield in December, 1882.
Re-examined: He made the entries in the diary in relation to his uncle’s affairs. The first entry was as to the first unpleasantness between his uncle and aunt. The learned counsel then proceeded to read a number of them, detailing the quarrels which occurred between the testator and his wife, who at the time were occupying separate rooms; that Mr Barningham used to drink; that at times he was “in a devil of a temper;” that they made “a miserable pair,” were often in “ill humour;” and that he was dissatisfied at his daughter’s “dilatory letter-writing.” The witness said that there was an estrangement for the last eighteen months of the testator’s life between himself and his daughter. He never heard that the deceased refused to allow his wife and daughter to come into the room where he was. Had never heard of his refusal to take food at their hands. There was no suggestion of his having poison in his food of which he (witness) heard. He suffered from a liver complaint. He went to France in the early part of 1880. Never heard that the deceased intended to leave an estate to his daughter Mary. He heard from one of the witnesses as to the incident with the watch. He seemed distressed at seeing the monogram of his wife on the watch. Two initials were put on the watch – “W. and M. B.” – and at that time their association seemed distasteful. Was not present when the coals were put on the table. The deceased said that he did this through his daughter slamming the door in his face. Witness had written a letter commencing, “It is a thousand pities that the testator should be separated from his wife and daughter.” He had expressed an opinion that the will was a cruel one.
Dr. William Crosbie, in practice at Salford and Pendleton, said that he was called in to attend the deceased on the 16th October, 1882, and found him suffering from liver complaint, which, he said, had been induced by his taking drops too freely in his youth. He attended the deceased daily until his death. He was present when the will was executed, and considered the testator at the time to be perfectly of sound mind. There was nothing to indicate a failing mind. Previous to the signing, Mr Hankinson read the will over to him. Witness tried to bring about a reconciliation between the deceased and his daughter, but did not succeed, the testator saying that it would upset existing arrangements. The deceased also refused to make a provision for his wife.
In answer to Mr Hankinson, he emphatically said that he wished the will to stand as it was on the day of his death. He was in a state of coma.
By Mr Inderwick, Q.C.: Was quite sure when he spoke to the deceased about his wife he refused to do anything for her. He stated that she was a pure woman.
Mr Francis Thomas Steavenson, Mayor of Darlington, a solicitor practising in Darlington, gave evidence as to receiving instructions for the will. It was pointed out to the deceased that no legacy or provision was made for his wife, but he refused to alter his dispositions, and declined to effect a reconciliation. Referring to his nephew, he said that “Tom” was a hard worker, and that if he married his daughter he would leave him every penny he possessed. Witness afterwards spoke to “Tom” about it, but he declined the proposal, on the ground that he felt it would not be productive of happiness. The will (one of the earlier ones) was duly executed.
Mr Middleton: What do you say as to the state of testator’s mind?
Witness: He was an honest, a straightforward, and a very able man of business.
By Mr Inderwick, Q.C.: Had never said that Mr Barningham was insane. Had advised in a friendly way that a caveat should be entered in respect of will in order that an enquiry might be made. It was not true he had said that Barningham’s conduct towards his wife was that of a madman.
The case was again adjourned.