WASH family of Colchester

Elizabeth WASH’s forbears

Thomas Wash

Tom was born in Colne Engaine in 1783 (son of Thomas and Elizabeth Wash) and married Sarah Sadd on 30 September 1806. They had seven children, the second of whom was James. The first child, Jemma, was baptised on 15 February 1807 and James Wash was christened on 29 January 1809.

(NB James baptism was written in the register to Thomas and Mary Wash, NOT Sarah. This may have been an error by the registrar, vicar or whoever. Proof of his paternity was not found until finding his 2nd marriage where occupation of his father is Gamekeeper.)

Subsequent children with their baptismal dates were

  • Thomas 17 March 1811,
  • Phillip 24 September 1813,
  • Elizabeth 21 May 1815,
  • John 19 April 1818
  • Sarah 22 April 1821.

Tom was Gamekeeper to the Honeywood estate at Markshall, Coggeshall. Tom and his dog are the subjects of an oil painting by R. Nightingale of Maldon. The following article by Mr. Hales appeared in the Essex Farmers Journal of November 1933. Apparently Tom Wash and Fisher Hobbs put their astute heads together and crossed rabbit beagles with a harrier to get the dash and the speed which placed them into a class of their own:

“Old Tom Wash, the beloved head keeper, who shared with the Parson those first small beginnings, from which so great results were to flow (for beagles all over the world now owe their qualities to the Honeywood blood), followed the pack as long as his legs permitted and was privileged to ride to Willie’s harriers. He survived all the Essex Honeywoods, and was gathered to his fathers in 1876 at the advanced age of 93 years. His grave is at Earls Clone (that Mecca of sportsman), and I am proud to be in correspondence with his great grandson, Mr. Tom Wash, of Frinton-on-Sea. Another great-grandson is Mr. Charles Wash the well known builder and contractor of Earls Colne.”

Tom was a witness at a court case for trespass in his later life. An article from the Chelmsford Chronicle is in the photo album section of this site.

James Wash and Rachel Wash
James and Rachel (nee Clark) had nine children.  They were:

  • Emma Wash born 14 March 1835
  • Rebecca Wash born 5 March 1837
  • Elizabeth Wash born 27 February 1840
  • James Wash born 3rd quarter 1841
  • Matilda Wash born 2nd quarter 1843
  • Sarah Wash born 1st quarter 1845
  • John Henry Wash born 3rd quarter 1846
  • George Wash born 2nd quarter 1848
  • Mary Ann Wash born 4th quarter 1850

James Wash
James died on 12 April 1898 at the age of 93 and is buried at St. Botolphs in Essex. After Rachel’s death in 1884 he married Susannah Maskell on 2 November 1886.

Rachel Wash
Rachel was born 28 June 1812 at Earls Colne in Essex. She died 11 September 1884 and is buried at St. Botolphs in Essex. She was the 7th child of William Clark and Rebecca Clark nee Smith.

The Wash bakery business
In 1850 this was in Magdalen Street. By 1866 James Wash had moved the business to 11 St Botolphs Street, Colchester where it continued until 1874. By 1878 son George had taken over the family business, trading at the same address. George Wash continued trading and it is believed that the business was handed down to his son George, now G. Wash Bakers. It moved to 45 St Botolph Street circa 1890 and remained there until 1952. By 1954 it was listed as just Wash’s and remained until 1964 when trading ceased.

Elizabeth Wash
Elizabeth lived to the ripe old age of 96 and 6 years before her death, on the occasion of her 90th birthday, had a “chat” to The County Telegraph newspaper reporter. At that stage she was living in Military Road in Colchester and was described as “so fresh, coloured, so jolly, so talkative, has such a vivid memory and is so active that her age would not be readily guessed”.

In the article she commented that she remembered the German Legion being accommodated in the wooden camp erected for them. They were “a terrible lot”, she commented “and fought amongst themselves”.

As this site and the records show, she was married to (and had at least ten children with) Peter who it’s believed was based there, so presumably they were not all so terrible.

Thomas Wash’s Witness Appearance

Thomas Wash
Article transcription from Chelmsford Chronicle 26 January 1872
The case of Mrs Frances Emma Honywood , Marks Hall, v John Gallifant,
hawker, was tried at Halsted County Court yesterday week, before J. T.
Abdy, Esq., Judge.
Mr. J. S. Barnes, of Colchester, appeared for the plaintiff.
The defendant, who throughout the whole proceedings conducted himself in a most extraordinary manner, boisterously responded when his name was called.
His Honour asked if he was aware where he was? He must understand that conduct of that sort would not be allowed in court. Defendant must behave properly, or he should exercise his power of committal. He had done so on one occasion, and should not hesitate to do so in this case.
Defendant (loudly): I wish to conduct myself as a man.
His Honour: If you don’t be quiet I’ll order the police to conduct you out of court. If this is allowed, the court will soon be a Babel of confusion. Mr. Barnes, in opening the case, remarked that he thought it would be seen from defendant’s conduct in court that day what kind of character his client, Mrs. Honywood, had had to deal with. He had thought fit to walk
down the private path and avenue leading to Marks Hall; and as he was doing so he was met by Mrs. Honywood, who asked him what his busines(sic) was. Defendant replied that he was a licenced hawker. Mrs. Honywood warned him to go back, but he persisted in going on towards the house, although Mrs. Honywood said she should be compelled to take
proceedings against him if he did so. Not satisfied with that he held up a brush and threatened Mrs. Honywood with it, and she had to make her escape in order to avoid what might have been serious injury. Defendant then went on as fast as he could towards the buildings, when he was met by one of the witnesses in the case, who also told him to go back, but he still refused, and persisted in going on, under the pretence that as a
licenced hawker he had a right to do so, until he was off the estate. In consequence of this conduct he (Mr. Barnes) was instructed to write to defendant, and accordingly wrote to him several letters, trying to induce the defendant to make some apology, and thus avoid this litigation, but of these he took no notice.
The defendant, who had been subpoenaed by Mr. Barnes, was called, and
examined. He admitted that he went along the path, met Mrs. Honywood, and refused to go back. – He said: I kept on; she said there was no thoroughfare there, and after what had taken place I thought it were Mr. Thomas Wash Honywood, the owner of the estate; she said there was no right that way; I said, “Begging your pardon, I was recommended this way, and I’m goin’ across to Coggeshall, and was recommended to come this way, as the nearest way from Halstead to Coggeshall;” she would not hear no sense, and insisted on my going back, which it was on a Thursday, and I had been a long journey on the previous day, and was tired enough, which I could make no impression on her mind; I said, “I hope, my lady, you’ll allow me to go this way this time, and I won’t any more;” she said “You must go back;” well, I says, “It is a long way to go back,” which was all a mile and a half in course to go back.
His Honour: You would have had to go back to the road? – Yes.
His Honour: You preferred to go the short cut instead of going round? – I
don’t say nothing to that. She wanted to send me back to Brick-house Farm, when the road came to within 500 yards of where I wanted to go. From what I experienced during the “confabulation” I soon ascertained it were Mrs. Honywood, the owner of the estate, and after I found it out I made an apology, and asked her to allow me to go through. Mr Barnes remarked that defendant had behaved in a most unmanly way. There was a good deal of the devil about him.
Defendant (excitedly): Not so much about me as about you. His Honour again warned defendant to be orderly. When Mrs. Honywood ordered him back, what did he do?
Defendant: To make a long story short, after I found I could make no impression, I quickly responded, and said, “I will go through.” His Honour: Did you not hold up something to her in your hand?—I did not. John Lewsey, carpenter to Mrs. Honywood, proved that he heard the
defendant refuse to go back, and that he held a brush up to her. Defendant: Did I threaten Mrs. Honywood?—You held up the brush, and said you would go that way. Mrs. Honywood said she would prosecute you.
Defendant: She said she would have me up. What did I say? Mind what you are about! What did you say? –I did not say anything. You walked off after that.
Defendant: Mind I don’t prove you to be a false man. I had no brush in my hand. Mrs. Honywood came up nearly as soon as you. – Witness: She did. She heard what you said.
Defendant: Well, that’s near enough. His Honour suggested that defendant had exhausted his
examination, and should reserve his statements for his defence. Thomas Wash
Defendant: You’re not on the right stetch*. I’m prepared for anything in the world. She said, “I’ll have you up, I’ll summon you.” I said I was a licensed hawker, and had authority to go that way.
His Honour: That you had not.
Defendant (striking the witness-box violently): Is that right?
His Honour said he would have no more of such displays. He had no right to intrude on a person’s property because he had a hawker’s licence. Thomas Wash: I shall be 89 years old on March 25; I have known the Marks Hall estate for the last 70 years and more; there is no public footpath leading from Brick House farm to Marks Hall, nor is there any footpath except up to the house; I was keeper on the estate for 33 years, and have known it for 80 years; the avenue is a private entrance; there are notices up at both ends, and they have been there always as long as I can remember; they were there in the time of Mr. Philip Honywood,
Captain Honywood, and the late Squire’s.
Defendant: Mr. Wash have known me a great many years. If I speak today– —
Mr. Arden (High Bailiff) : Have you any questions to ask him?
His Honour: He has proved there is no public footpath.
Defendant: He has not told you what privileges he has from Mrs. Honywood.
His Honour: That has nothing whatsoever to do with this case; you can’t ask any such question as that.
Mr. Barnes said he had another witness to prove the notices. The court would have seen clearly the character Mrs. Honywood unfortunately came into contact with.
His Honour thought further evidence was unnecessary. He had it from defendant’s own lips that he was a trespasser. They had it from his own lips that because he was a licenced hawker he imagined he had a right to go where he pleased, but he (his Honour) would tell him he had no right to go on private property, nor to take a short cut over an estate in order to avoid a long way round. It was proved to his satisfaction that defendant was very much excited and was not to be trusted.
Defendant (loudly): Look here!
His Honour said he must look to him. He gave Judgement for the amount claimed with costs, and if defendant was not careful he would find himself in custody.
Thomas Wash
Defendant said he should be sorry to deprive his Honour of any “preference” due to him or his character.
His Honour again cautioned him not to incur committal for contempt of court.
Defendant: You haven’t given me an opportunity of asking Mr. Wash further particulars.
His Honour: My business is to prevent your asking him improper questions.
Defendant still persisted in interrupting, and ultimately his Honour directed the police to be sent for.
Defendant: You won’t give me an opportunity of asking questions.
His Honour: There’s an end of the case.
Defendant (violently): No; there’s not an end to the case. I want to know what it is I’ve got to stand to.
His Honour, who had borne defendant’s impertinences with great patience, at length said he could be no longer treated in that way, and had made up his mind to commit defendant for seven days for contempt of court.
Defendant, who at first declined to leave the box, was ultimately taken into custody by two constables, and was, with some difficulty, conveyed to the police station.

 noun A ridge between two furrows, as in plowed land.
 To form into ridges with a plow: followed by up.
End of first page of article, balance from next page, (copy not held).
Transcribed by Joy Stocks 05/08/202

We keep your data private and share your data only with third parties that make this service possible. See our Privacy Policy for more information.
We keep your data private and share your data only with third parties that make this service possible. See our Privacy Policy for more information.