The known facts for the Thomas we are researching are: Thomas, was the husband of Thirza, father of George and his five siblings, and forebear of many descendants in New Zealand, born some time in the 1790s, somewhere in England.
I had begun searching for Thomas, thinking of him as a Brenchley native. There were already Hickmott families and descendents of Stephen Hickmott and Hannah Scrace, resident in Brenchley but Thomas was not of their lot. Fortunately, the International Genealogical Index (IGI) of the LDS Church included the parishes of Brenchley and surrounds in their index, which made the search a little more straightforward.
Instead of starting at the beginning, which is in question, let us start at the end and work backwards, taking known facts, then adding suppositions:
Thomas Hickmott died on 20 July 1883 at Tong Farm, Brenchley, of “natural decay”, as certified by W. Tear, Surgeon. His age was given as 91 years and the informant was his son, Jacob, who also lived at Tong Farm. The registrar was Henry Lawrence. His wife, Thirza (nee Smith) had pre-deceased him by less than five months. She died of bronchitis and exhaustion, aged 74 years, as certified by T.A. Guinness, M.K.C.S., on 25 February 1883 at Tong Farm, Brenchley. Jacob was also the informant on that occasion and he was then residing at Bakers Hill, Brenchley.
The 1881 Census showed them living in Tong Cottage, Brenchley, Thomas aged 89 years, born in Wadhurst, Sussex and Thirza , aged 74 years, born in Lamberhurst, Kent and with them was staying their grandson, Henry W. Kitchenham, aged 7 years, born in Brenchley. (Thirza was born in 1810, so was in fact only 71 years.)
Great! Now it appeared that he was born in Wadhurst, Sussex, around 1792. I hired in the film of the Wadhurst Parish registers from the LDS, but alas, if he was born there, he was not christened at the Parish church. There was a Thomas born to Walter Hickmott and Mary Stapely, in 1793 in that area, but he died in 1794, aged only 19 weeks, so it was not him. There were no other Hickmott families in the area at that time having children.
Looking at the era of 1792 (1883 minus 91), there were two Thomas christened in Lamberhurst, in 1791 & 1793, both to Thomas Hickmott and Elizabeth Wibley (one must have died!) Also, two Thomas born in Horsmonden, in 1794 and 1797, both to John Hickmott and Mary (again, one must have died.) The only other of that era was Thomas Coxe Hickmott, illegitimate son of Sarah Hickmott and Thomas Coxe. He was christened on 9 August 1795 at Lamberhurst. The Banns of Marriage had been called for the couple on 15th and 22nd of February and the 1st March, 1795 but no marriage had eventuated. There may have been other Thomas’s christened in parishes not indexed on the IGI. This is indeed a possibility.
Searching for Thomas’s marriage to Thirza, I found it in Lamberhurst and was surprised to find that he was noted on the Banns read on 24th April, 1st May and 8th May, 1836 to be a “Wooderer” They were married on 14 May 1836 and were said to be “both of this Parish”. Thirza was a Spinster and Thomas a “Widower”. James Sharp and Mary Watts were witnesses. Both Thomas and Thirza signed the marriage certificate with - X - their mark. Robert Hawkins was the Vicar.
A previous marriage was then found for Thomas. On 1st June 1820, he married Mary Hodgskin by Banns, both being “of this parish”. No prior marital status was given. The witnesses were Henry Smith (who was able to sign his name) and “the mark of” Elizabeth Barber. Thomas Phelps was the officiating Minister. An interesting fact here; Henry Smith was the name of Thirza’s father, so the two were obviously very friendly, in fact Henry may have been the “Best Man” of Thomas.
There were children born of both these marriages. This will be covered later. In the meantime, we are searching for further clues as to who Thomas is, where he was born and who were his parents.
A search of the Census of 1841 by Pat Stamp found the family of Thomas in Lamberhurst and Thomas was an Agricultural Labourer aged “35”, Thirza “30”, Louisa 13, Isaac 4, Jacob 2 and Horace 18 days. This census required ages of adults to be rounded up or down in five year brackets. As someone who married in 1820 and was not noted to be underage, he was obviously somewhat older than 35 years. Louisa was the daughter of his previous marriage to Mary, and a definite link that proved this prior marriage was correct. Birthplace was not given in this Census, only whether or not they were born in the U.K. They all were.
I then searched the Census of 1851 and found him living at N. Tong, Brenchley, still working as an Agricultural Labourer, aged 57 years (a rapid increase) and birthplace noted as Croydon, Surrey. Thirza (spelt Thursey) was now aged 41 years and Issac 14; Jacob 12; Horace 9; Eliza 7; George 5 and Charles 1. Thirza and all of the children were born at Lamberhurst, apart from Charles, who was born at Brenchley. They were living in a cottage next to, or on the farm of, William Smith, a farmer of 200 acres, who employed two Agricultural Labourers. One of the Labourers lived with William on the farm; it seems likely that Thomas worked for William also. It is also possible that William is Thirsa’s brother, although he would have been a few years younger than the 50 years, given in the Census. Age did not seem to mean much to them then. Issac at 14 years was also working as an Agricultural Labourer.
So at that time Thomas was regarded as being born in Croydon, Surrey. The 1861 Census was examined by the researcher of the Hickmott Centenial book, who says the given birthplace was Essex, and the age was 67 years. The 1871 Census also says, “Essex, Not Known”, so we can now take our pick from Sussex, Essex or Surrey - but apparently not Kent. As well as the differences in the birthplaces, the age of Thomas seems uncertain, 1841, 35 - in 1851 he has aged to 57 years, 1861 67 years, in 1871 79 years, in 1881 is said to be 89 years. Two years later when he died he was supposedly 91 years.
As both Thomas and Thirza were unable to write, the Census taker would have been filling in the information for them. Why would Thomas, supposedly “of this Parish” have been born away from it? The age errors are understandable, as this was before Civil Registration and there are many age discrepancies in that time period. Did he put his age down in 1841, due to his younger wife? Perhaps he was looking a lot older after ten years of providing for his growing family, so in 1851 had to own up to a few more years? Or did the Census not have much meaning and relevance to him?
It was around this time that I decided that Thomas must be the son of Thomas Hickmott and Elizabeth Wibley. This conclusion was arrived at partly because I never considered that the New Zealand families could possibly have originated from any other than a legal marriage base, as well as the Lamberhurst marriage ties and finally because of the age he had arrived at in the last years of his life span. The problem here was that there were two Thomas’s born, in 1791 and 1793. Logic tells us that the first child must have been expected not to survive, for the second to be named Thomas. Burial records though show that the child died in 1794 an“infant”. Other deaths gave ages 2 yrs, 5yrs etc., so to me “infant” seemed to lean towards the younger child, who would have been under the age of a year. So against better judgement I ‘attached’ Thomas and his families to Thomas 1791, which made the age of Thomas at death virtually correct. It did not make a great deal of difference if it was the wrong Thomas, as the parents were the same and the family tree lines unaffected.
At this stage we will leave the questions and go on with what we do know, the birth/christening of his children from both marriages.
The children of Thomas Hickmott and Mary Hodgskin were:
James Hickmott, Christened 24 December 1820, Lamberhurst
The children of Thomas Hickmott and Thirza Smith were:
Isaac Hickmott, Christened 20 November 1836, Lamberhurst.
When I began this research, the New Zealand families for whom I was doing this, were unaware of the first marriage of Thomas. Louisa living with Thomas and Thirza in 1841 proved the link and I knew I was on the right track. James in the 1871 Census lived next door to Thomas. There is no doubt that this is factual. The only other information we have on this first family, is found in the Poor House records, where Virgil, aged 11 years, was present in February 1834 and may have even been there since December 1833 (torn and discoloured pages on the film). He disappeared from there after 25 September 1834, when there is the notation “gone to his Uncle in Wadhurst” between the names of he and James, another 11 year old, possibly not his brother, but the son of Samuel Hickmott.
So Thomas was finding it hard to manage in those years, without a wife and with young children to raise. The eldest son James, then 14 years was possibly working, Charles had died in 1831, William and Louisa would still have been at school, why did Virgil end up staying in the Poor House?
It was at this point that I came to the conclusion that Thomas and Samuel were brothers, both sons of Thomas Hickmott Snr and Elizabeth Wibley. In the Poor House at the same time, were the three sons of Samuel, who had also been widowed (twice). BUT - at the same time there was also another Thomas Hickmott who had left his wife and five children in the Poor House on 31 March 1834. Times must have been hard for him - or was he in gaol?. How do you tell which Thomas is which?
Thomas and Samuel Hickmott were linked together in the Vestry Minutes of 7th July 1834, with the notation “Thos. & Samuel Hickmott - Have left their families Vestry 21 July 1834. Chargeable. The Overseer to act as the case requires, and - 13th April 1835; Thos. & Samuel Hickmott: Begs some help to remove their families. Allow £3.10s and a bedstead.
I then “linked” the other family, (Jane and children) to Thomas Coxe Hickmott, illegitimate son of Sarah, the only other Thomas of the era in Lamberhurst.
What is known of the family of this Thomas, is that he had married wife Jane away from the Parish of Lamberhurst; children were; Ruth born cir.1827, George born cir. 1829, William born cir.1831, Harriett born cir.1832, and Henry born cir. 1833. Jane in 1834 was aged 31 years. Only Ruth and Henry, the eldest and youngest were baptised in Lamberhurst. The family were in the Poor House for over a year and finally discharge on 14 April 1835. Henry died aged two years and was buried in Lamberhurst on 29 August 1835 and it was noted that at the time he was residing in Tunbridge Wells. The fact that this family could go away, come back and be supported by the Parish, as well as bury their child in the Parish shows that this particular Thomas was a Lamberhurst native.
In the Vestry minutes there were also the following notations:
10th Nov 1834 -Thomas Hickmott Snr. Wants his name put down to tell Vestry he shall be with them on Monday next and should like to know what they mean to allow him for the Child. Grant 1/6d per week for the child and 10/- relief.
24th Nov 1834 - Thomas Hickmott Snr. Wants a bill for 3 months pay to be paid when due. Wants relief now. NO.
19th Jan 1835 - Thomas Hickmott. Wants assistance. Not having work to support his wife and self. Nothing.
So who were these Thomas’s? Thomas Snr is supporting a child, possibly not his own, for whom he is seeking financial help, then he wants relief now, but none is forthcoming on that demand. Is he the same Thomas Hickmott, seeking support also for himself and his wife as he has no work? The Church elders were not sympathetic to his claim, so they must have regarded him as self sufficient enough at the time. Perhaps this all related to Thomas Hickmott Snr, who did not die until 1854.
Virgil has already left the Poor House. Jane and children are still in residence, yet it sounds as if Thomas and Samuel left their children for the Vestry to care for only in July 1834? After putting this together in this fashion, I now note that Jane and family appear to be related to the 13th April minute above, as they left the Poor House the next day, something I had not noticed previously. This links them now to Thomas, brother of Samuel.
Then I discovered the Hickmott Convicts in Australia. As the name is of interest to so many, I decided to investigate the Convicts who were sent over here, to see if any of them came from Lamberhurst. When I looked at the Tasmanian Indexes, I saw immediately that a Thomas and Samuel were transported together in 1840. It seemed such a coincidence, that I requested the copies of the records of all five of the Hickmotts who came to Tasmania, as well as the two who came to New South Wales. On arrival I found that Thomas and Samuel were definitely from Lamberhurst, though the other three were not. I initially thought by the description of the two Lamberhurst men that they were not brothers, being very different in appearance, but on investigating the BDM’s of Tasmania and Victoria, I found that Thomas had died in Victoria, naming his parents as Thomas and Betsey. His age both on both the convict records and death certificate made his birth circa 1794, making him the younger of the two Thomas’s born to Thomas Hickmott and Elizabeth Wibley, hence he is the brother of Samuel and this blew all my conclusions to smithereens! So “our” Thomas is not the son of Thomas and Elizabeth, nor the brother of Samuel, as previously surmised!!
Back to the drawing board - as it were!
So what can I now tell the New Zealand descendants? Well, to be honest, the only other Thomas of that time living in Lamberhurst was Thomas Coxe Hickmott. He was given the name of his natural father as his middle name, even though the marriage did not take place. There is no record of any Thomas ever using this second name. The age of “our” Thomas at death indicates he thought himself older than born 1795, yet in 1841, he regarded himself as 35, when he would have been 46 years (if born 1795), so nearer to 45 than 35. In 1861, he says he is 67 years (1794) then begins to gain a few years from then on. Did he really know (or care) how old he was?
The frustration of those times, is that being pre-Civil Registration, there are no certificates to be obtained that will give the names of the parents. English certificates are very lacking in information, unlike the New Zealand and Australian certificates, which give details of the parents on the death certificate (if known by the informant.) Also, the two marriages of Thomas took place before Civil Registration, so once more a potential source of information was lost. On English marriage certificates after 1837, the father of both parties are named.
So the facts are: Thomas was born during the 1790s, away from Lamberhurst, although he lived, worked, married twice and had ten of his eleven children in Lamberhurst. Why would he have been born away? Well an illegitimate birth could well be the answer.
Here is my latest fantasy: Sarah Hickmott, daughter of Russell and Sarah Hickmott, (pillars of Society - he was an Overseer of the Church; landowner/lease holder - he was paying “tithes” when other Hickmott families were not; employer, - the Church directed that he take a poor boy into his service, so he must have had work for the lad to do), and Thomas Coxe of Goudhurst are courting, planning to be married, the Banns are called, the marriage anticipated a little early (perhaps the reason for the calling of the Banns.) Something happens in the few weeks prior to the marriage! Thomas Coxe gets cold feet and runs away to join the army: is caught poaching and thrown into gaol and transported to the Colonies, never to be seen again: falls off his horse and breaks his neck while galloping to see his beloved: comes down with smallpox and dies? Any number of possibilities arise, all of them devastating to his poor fiancée, growing plumper by the day, but pale and wan from morning sickness. The equally devastated parents of Sarah, concerned about her well-being and the village gossip, arrange for her to spend her pregnancy at the home of her Grandparents/Aunt/Uncle/Family friend (?) at their comfortable home away from Lamberhurst. Possibly more for the sake of Sarah, than the gossip, as Lamberhurst did not seem to me to be overly concerned about legitimacy, from the records kept by the Church. There was no over-emphasis on morality, or otherwise in the records. Church Wardens held their meetings on a Saturday night at one of the village pubs, so they were not “wowsers” as such. The Hickmott families in the area had a number of illegitimacies over the years, some of the women more than one, yet they did not seek the support of the Church, so must have been kept within relationships, even if not “married” in the eyes of the Church.
Once the baby was born and Sarah once more had something to live for and love, she returned to Lamberhurst to her parents, home and security, knowing that Russell can afford to feed and clothe her while her baby is still dependent. There she has the little fellow christened in the village Church and gets on with her life.
Thomas grew up knowing that he was born away from Lamberhurst while his mother was staying with ????. He believes it was in Croydon, Surrey. (There were very few Hickmott families living in Surrey in those days.) Then someone says to him ‘no - they were not living in Surrey - they lived in Essex.’ By this time his mother has passed on, so he cannot ask her (I don’t know when Sarah died, or if she did marry). So for several decades, or Censuses, he thinks he was born somewhere in Essex. (Hickmotts did not live in Essex as a rule - perhaps they were not “Hickmott”.) As he got older, he became more interested in his history and found that the previous stories were just that - only stories, and in fact he was actually born in Wadhurst, Sussex, very close to Lamberhurst, which in fact seems to be more likely. It is quite feasible that the baby was born in Wadhurst, but came home to Lamberhurst for the christening.
I am not sure that we will ever know the truth, whether Thomas is indeed the son of Sarah, grandson of Russell & Sarah but for now, this is where I have “attached” the New Zealand lines. The family tree still goes back to John Hickmott and Ann Russell, as Russell was their son, but via a female line.
More facts: At the time that “our” Thomas was having difficulty keeping his family together, Thirza Smith has her own problems. Poor girl found herself pregnant and around mid-1834 has a baby girl, who she calls Ann Coap Smith (christened 8 June 1834 at Lamberhurst). At the Vestry meeting of 27th October 1834, she “begs for some weekly allowance”, saying the father is unable to support her. She was turned down flat! No grant! On 10th November 1834, Henry Smith threw his weight behind her, and applies to the Vestry meeting “wanting some pay for his daughter’s child. He was granted One shilling per week. (I think they may have been a bit male chauvinistic!) They were not in a hurry to pay her though, for at the meeting of 8th December, 1834, Thirza again “begs assistance for the support of her child” and the comments are “Refer to Vestry 10th November. I hope she received it! On 8th June 1835 the meeting again hears from Thirza who “applies for her child pay” and is granted “14 weeks at 1/6d per week. Allowed.”
One point here: Ann Coap Smith - strange name for a little baby girl. So is COAP the name of the reluctant father? Possibly. Ann has never been found living with Thomas and Thirza in any Census. Did she die, or did the Grandparents raise her after the marriage to Thomas, when Thirza began having other children? (As this happened to my own mother, I know it is a possibility.) So many unanswered questions.
So here we have two lonely people, raising children by themselves; Thomas was a good friend of Thirza’s father, Henry Smith, so they would have known each other well for many years. Was it love, or convenience - or a little bit of both? Anyway, the marriage was a fruitful one and they eventually moved from the village of Lamberhurst to nearby Brenchley and lived to a good age for those times. Thirza was about 15 years younger than Thomas (more if he was not born 1795), yet she predeceased him and he died within a few months. Their son George left the rural lifestyle of Kent and his story is another tale, yet to be told. This at least has more fact than fantasy, and many New Zealand descendants to affirm it.
Dawn Miles
Virgil Hickmott, Christened 12 May 1822, Lamberhurst. Died 19 May 1841, Lamberhurst
Charles Hickmott, Christened 2 May 1824, Lamberhurst. Died 1 June 1831, Lamberhurst
William Hickmott, Christened 2 April 1826, Lamberhurst
.
Louisa Hickmott, Christened 27 April 1828, Lamberhurst. Died 28 May 1844, Lamberhurst.
Jacob Hickmott, Christened 10 March 1839, Lamberhurst
Horace Hickmott, Christened 13 June 1841, Lamberhurst
Eliza Hickmott, Christened 11 February 1844, Lamberhurst
George Hickmott, Born 1846, Lamberhurst (christening records not on film).
Charles Hickmott, Born 1850, Brenchley.
23 July 2001