The Arrowsmith Connections

Ancestors Home Site map History

The Arrowsmith Connections

updated and revised February 2008
The BMDs of children in the main Arrowsmith family have been checked on the Medway site, 'City Ark'...
The rest arebeing contnued where possible on other Perhaps more birth dates and more children still to come!

No further information is yet available on the Alderson family of Hoo St Werburgh, not far from Rochester, but the Meagers have been taken back a couple of generations thanks to a new and rather puzzling discovery in the records of the Chancery Court.

First Generation

The name 'Arrowsmith' originates as an occupational name in either Scotland or Lancashire. Further south the general term for that occupation was 'fletcher' from the French 'flèche', arrow. Wherever they came from the Arrowsmiths could have spent a generation or two in London 'on the way' to Kent, but nothing is known of them before the first Thomas, whose birth and birthplace are unknown.. The source for most of the records of Thomas I & II below are from the Bishops Transcripts, Rochester 1752 - 1780

Arrowsmith Family Grant Family

Family of
Thomas Arrowsmith I and Sarah

The Arrowsmith family were living in Rochester, Ken for at least three generations. It was there that the six children of Thomas and Sarah were born and brought up. All were baptised at St Nicholas' Rochester, and images of all the original entries are available on the City Ark site for Medway. (More may yet come to light - especially in view of the gap between 1758 and 1760!)

Thomas Arrowsmith II b. 10 Mar, chr. 30 Mar 1752,

Sarah Arrowsmith b. 7 Aug chr.19 Aug 1753

John Arrowsmith b.19 Feb chr.14 Mar 1756

Matthew Arrowsmith b. 10 July, chr.1 Aug 1758

James Arrowsmith b. 12 Jan, chr.5 Feb 1769

Isaac Arrowsmith b. 12 Jul, chr.15 Jul 1770

No.1 - Thomas Arrowsmith II m. Mary (surname unknown)
No 3.- John Arrowsmith - could be the one who married Sarah Goldick on 23 Nov 1779 at Strood [IGI]
No. 5 - James Arrowsmith m. Sarah (date unknown) and had two daughters: Sophia chr 9 Feb 1794, St Nicholas, Rochester
Elizabeth chr. 21 Jan 1798, St Nicholas, Rochester
No. 6 - Isaac Arrowsmith m. Elizabeth Bridgens 6 Jul 1800 at St Nicholas, Rochester

Grant Family

The only two persons found so far in this family were probably sisters who both married in Milton next Sittingbourne, Kent (Medway area)

Jane Grant m. James Meager 15 Jul 1780

Mary Grant m. John Smith 20 Oct 1778

John Smith and Mary (Grant) had at least one son, John Grant Smith, executor of his mother's will. A Thomas Grant who later replaced another executor had a married sister, Sarah Matson. From the case in Chancery referred to here and outlined below it looks as though he was brother to Jane and Mary Grant and was therefore uncle to Alicia Arrowsmith., though this is still speculative at present.

Apart from a lot of Meagers in Cornwall and a cluster of three families or so, probably all related, in Croydon, Surrey, the rest of the examples are fairly scattered in the Home Counties so their origin can't be established at present.

'A House Divided'

The report of the case in Chancery in 1833 known as March v.Russell gave a lead in establishing the close relationships between the parties involved in the Arrowsmith, Meager, Smith and Matson families. The IGI revealed that the maiden name of Prudence March was Matson.

Second Generation

Family of
Thomas Arrowsmith II and Mary

It is not known when Thomas and Mary (surname unknown) married, but they had four children, all baptised at St Margaret's, Rochester.

Sarah Arrowsmith chr. 10 Jul 1774

Thomas Arrowsmith III chr. 23 Nov 1777

Martha Arrowsmith chr.17 Feb 1780

Jenny Arrowsmith chr.6 Oct 1782 .

The marriage of Thomas Arrowsmith III to Alicia Eliza Meager was recorded at Cuxton, Kent on 4 Sep 1803.
[ Bishops Transcripts, Chatham 1794 - 1812 ; IGI Batch no.M135182 Cuxton]

Family of
James Meager and Jane Grant

James Meager and Jane Grant were married on 15 Jul 1780 in the church at Milton next Sittingbourne, about ten miles eastwards of Chatham. In the absence of any conflicting information James and Jane are believed to have had the following children :

Alicia Eliza Meager b. 14 Jul 1782 chr.11 Aug 1782 in St Olave's, Southwark, Surrey, [IGI Batch #C022727]

Mary Grant Meager, b.30 Mar 1784 in Milton next Sittingbourne, Kent [IGI -Batch #C034839]

No other Alicia Eliza has been found, so it is assumed that there was only one, in spite of the discrepancies listed below.

Third Generation

Family of Thomas Arrowsmith III and Alicia Eliza Meager

Thomas and Alicia were married on 4 Sep 1803 at Cuxton, a small village about two miles southwest of Rochester, on the R.Medway, which was presumably where Alicia was living at the time. She was born on 14 Jul and was baptised on 11 Aug 1782 at St Olave's in Southwark. No other person with her rather distinctive name has been found so it does look very likely that this entry in the IGI is hers.

The marriage of Thomas Arrowsmith III to Alicia Eliza Meager was recorded at Cuxton, Kent on m. 4 Sep 1803. Bishops Transcripts, Chatham 1794 - 1812 ; IGI Batch no.M135182 Cuxton].

The first five children were all born in Chatham but none of the places are far away from each other, lying along the R.Medway. Most of the known birth or christening dates below are freely available on the site for Medway. 'City-Ark''. The parish clerk seems to have a problem with hearing and/or recognizing the name 'Alicia', three different versions being shown in italics after her children's names below, though of course spelling was not standardised at this time. The children with the 'incorrect' [Letitia/Elicia] names for their mother are marked in green.

Alicia Mary Meager Arrowsmith (Alicia Eliza) chr. 29 Jul 1804

Thomas Arrowsmith IV(Letitia Elizabeth) chr. 13 Apr 1806

Sarah Prudence Arrowsmith ( Elicia Eliza) chr. 2 Apr 1809

Nicholas Arrowsmith (Alicia Eliza) b. 8 Nov 1812, chr. 11 Nov 1812

Jane Ellen Arrowsmith (Letitia Eliza) chr. 6 Apr 1817

Francis Arrowsmith (female) (Alicia Eliza) chr. 5 Dec 1819 St Margaret's, Rochester, Kent

The name 'Alicia', or an alternative spelling in the family of 'Alecia', has continued in use at least once in every generation of descendants to date (i.e. five more than those listed here) without anyone apparently being aware that it was a 'family' name with a long pedigree!

The tree above shows the relationships between the various families involved in Chancery (below). The two names in grey are so far speculative but it is assumed as a 'working hypothesis' that Prudence and Thomas March 'belong' in the 2nd generation and that the others in that all shown as in that generation were siblings or cousins. (Even if not the same generation, they were all related!) William and Mary Matson had 8 children some born in Ashford. Jane, next after Prudence, was born in Milton next Sittingbourne'. Others associated with the village through birth or marriage were Jane and Mary Grant, James Meager, Mary Grant Meager and also John Smith.
(Milton is only a few miles from Chatham and Rochester, both places where the Arrowsmiths were born, on that side of Sittingbourne)

'March v. Russell'
A summary of the case in Chancery. The main inter-related people involved are shown in bold.
The original document has been transcribed (presumably by OCR, with some odd results) and is printed in full online.
It can easily be found by googling "Alicia Eliza Arrowsmith" in quotes.
The case in Chancery stemmed from a deed made in 1807 by Thomas and Prudence March appointing George Russell and George Hodgson as trustees for a 'sum of stock' for the benefit of their children, then infants. Thomas March's wife Prudence was the third of six daughters of William Matson and Mary, born on 1 Oct 1777 in Kent, probably in Ashford.
Thomas and Prudence had three children according to the report,

Mary Prudence chr. 7 Apr 1799 in Deptford)

George Thomas b.14 Feb, chr. 27 May 1801

John, b. abt 1803

By 1833 George and John were said to be 'the only children' of Thomas and Prudence.

The proceedings in Chancery began in 1817 to find out what had happened to the stock but no-one seemed to know where it had gone. In 1810 Thomas Grant replaced Hodgson, and soon after transferred the stock, 'a sum of 1000 Navy 5% Bank Annuities' held in their joint names (Russell and Grant) into the name of the other trustee, Russsell, only. The solicitors representing Thomas and Prudence March wrote to Grant asking for the stock to be replaced. Grant replied to Mrs March (at no.33 Moffatt St, City Road, London) with a string of excuses about why this hadn't been done, referring to the stock 'which you so much wished me to let Mr Russell have.' He wrote that it was
---- 'in estates and business...the sooner I can buy in the stocks the better it will be for me as they keep rising...'
.......' it could not be your wish to distress me...it would put me to considerable inconvenience to buy in the stocks immediately...'
----'I understood you, when I was in town, that if the interest was regularly paid you would be satisfied....'
----'When I returned from London I was attacked with inflammation on my lungs which laid me up for some time...'
----'I am sorry to say that Mrs Matson is very ill...'

In 1818 the March family filed a bill in Chancery against Russell and Grant but Russell gave additional security for interest both in the past and for the future and Grant killed off the bill with a rather suspicious document apparently signed by Thomas and Prudence March, 'expressly authorising him to transfer the stock to his co-trustee, Russell.' (The 'signatures' were perhaps just crosses. Alicia Eliza only signed her will with a cross.)

Will of Thomas Grant
However ill Sarah Matson was in 1817, she managed to survive until 1830. It was Thomas Grant who died, just two years later, in 1820. His executors were Sarah Matson, Russell and John Perkins. Thomas left much of his personal estate to his sister Sarah Matson, and out of what was left after his debts were paid, a third to Sarah, one third to Mary Smith (nee Meager), and one third to Alicia Eliza Arrowsmith (nee Meager), wife of Thomas Arrowsmith. Alicia was to receive one third of that share and the rest was to be invested and the interest paid to her. After her death the capital was to be shared out among her children. (It should be noted of course that women could not own property in their own name, not even the clothes they wore - everything would go to their husband when they married - so it was usually given as an investment in trust, thus being protected from 'intermeddling' by the husband)

Will of Sarah Matson (formerly Grant)
Sarah Prudence Arrowsmith was her 'residuary legatee'. Whereabouts not known at present

Will of Mary Smith (formerly Grant)
Mary Smith also died. Her executors were George Ray and her son John Grant Smith who both also proved her will, but it looks as though her personal estate was very small.(The year is not given and a will with such a name is practically impossible to find!)

In 1833 George and John March, the children, filed a new bill in Chancery, against Russell, Perkins, Thomas and Alicia Arrowsmith, their daughter Sarah Prudence Arrowsmith, and Alicia's other children, and also against their own parents, Thomas and Prudence, against Ray and against John Grant Smith, but the latter was 'out of the jurisdiction of the court.' The Master of the Rolls found for the two March children, ordering the way in which was owed them should be made good out of the various estates, a very complicated affair, and awarded costs to be paid by Russell and the other defendants. All of them, except for Russell and the March parents promptly appealed.

The proceedings which followed were further complicated by an argument over precedent where a breach of trust was involved - what was the situation in previous cases where the Plaintiffs were under age (being only ten and eight) when the situation first arose. Would the lapse of time itself contribute towards invalidating their demands? Had they been aware of what was happening and had they 'acquiesced' in a breach of trust? They argued the case from many examples of similar actions in the past. Eventually the appeal was finally dismissed, with costs. It seems to have been the best the judges thought could be done in the circumstances. (Could anyone could be really sure what had happened to the stocks? They had been transferred and reinvested so many times in different names - some of it had even been changed at one point to a mortgage. Sarah Prudence Arrowsmith seemed only to have received 'the clear surplus of Sarah Matson's estate, namely £129 15s 1d (or 11d.?)

It was eventually decided that the lapse of time since the original Bill in 1817 was no bar to the March brothers' claim for repayment, both being now 'of age', as they had been underage then and could not be expected to have agreed to something they didn't understand, to the funds remaining in the wrong hands or to acquiescing in a breach of trust. The appeal was dismissed with costs. Mary Smith, Alicia ahd her daughter Sarah, would have had to repay all that they had received, though it seems unlikely that they had any idea that they weren't entitled to any of it.

Will of Alicia Eliza Arrowsmith
In her will, dated 1844, Alicia Eliza identifies her daughters as Jane Ellen, Sarah Prudence and ffrances (the ff being an old usage for F) Both the 1841 census and the Citation of March v. Russell give theArrowsmith address as Burton St, Middlesex and Alicia's will states that she was then a widow.

'Conflict' on the 1841 Census (taken in June that year)

Address - not found elsewhere. Ages of the Chatham Arrowsmiths according to their birth records should be:
Alicia Eliza Arrowsmith (mother, presumably widowed as Thomas can't be found) aged 56 as the only one of this name
Sarah (Prudence) aged 32
Jane (Ellen) aged 24,
Francis (female) aged 21.
All were born in Chatham so would also be 'out of County' in Westminster. Perhaps it was the servant, Louisa Povey who gave wrong ages to the enumerator!

Address: No. 3 Burton St in Belgrave, Westminster, in the parish of St George, Hanover Sq.
Alicia Arrowsmith aged 56, marked as 'Ind.', i.e. Independent
Sarah aged 24,
Jane aged 22
Francis (female) aged 16
a servant Louisa Povey.
All of them were born out of the county. [ RG number:HO107 Piece:732 Book/Folio:6/44 Page:8 ]

Nothing more is known of these children of Thomas and Alicia Eliza, except Nicholas (No.4) who married Sarah Alderson at Hoo St Werburgh, near Rochester, Kent, on 6 Feb 1832.
[ IGI Batch no.M131462; Hoo St Werburgh]

Nothing else is known of the Aldersons, though Sarah may have had a brother called George.

Family of Nicholas Arrowsmith & Sarah Alderson

The names of Sarah Alderson's parents is not known, only that she was living at Hoo, near Rochester, at the time of her marriage in St Werburg's on 6 Feb 1832. Sarah was of course Sarah Arrowsmith in 1841, age approximately 30 but neither she nor Nicholas have been found on that census yet, nor have their (known) three children: (Interestingly, as a boy Charles Dickens also lived in the parish of St Mary's Chatham at about this time. It's unlikely that the families met, though it's possible that they attended church at the same time) Nicholas Smith was a tallow chandler and is given on the marriage certificate of his daughter Sarah in 1852 as deceased. He hasn't been found on the 1841 census and isn't mentioned on his mother's will of 1844 so perhaps died any time from about 1836 to 1841, and almost certainly before 1844.

1. Sarah Alicia Arrowsmith chr. 8 Aug 1832 at Hoo St Werburg, m. Henry George Cope d. 18 Oct 1878
2. Ellen Jane Arrowsmith chr 9 Sep 1834 at St Mary's, Chatham
3. Francis Arrowsmith (also known as 'Frank') b. abt 1836, emigrated to Alberta, Canada.

None of these children have so far been found in 1841 although Sarah and Francis (Frank) are easily found later. Their ages on the 1841 census should be:

Sarah Arrowsmith (mother) age not known
Sarah Alicia 9,
Ellen Jane 7,
Francis (aka Frank) 5

Names can be switched around so it is possible that Ellen might appear as 'Jane' but she has not been found later under either name. Perhaps she died young as was the fate of many other children at the time. Those who lived in Lambeth were very vulnerable (see the family of William Cope, father of Henry George as an example) mostly owing to the unsavoury and damp conditions there, with the added hazards of frequent outbreaks of cholera in the early part of the 19th century.
Ada Cope, born 1868, remembered her mother Sarah Alicia, the 9 year old above, on Sundays, 'in her brown silk dress', (dressed up for church, not in her 'working' clothes?), busy writing to her brother Frank (5 in 1841) who had emigrated to Alberta, Canada. He is last found on the 1861 census as a 25 year old warehouseman living with Sarah and her husband Henry in Westminster, not far from St Martin in the Fields. He has not been found in Alberta records but these are very sparse as it was still pioneer territory. Sarah died in St Thomas's Hospital, Lambeth on 18 Oct 1878 and Henry died of pneumonia on 28 Jan 1881 so whatever contact there might have been was lost. More about Henry George Cope and Sarah Alicia (nee Arrowsmith) can be found on the Cope family pages.

Family of Thomas Arrowsmith II and Mary It is not known when Thomas and Mary (surname unknown) married, but they had four children, all baptised at St Margaret's, Rochester. Sarah Arrowsmith chr. 10 Jul 1774 Thomas Arrowsmith III chr. 23 Nov 1777 Martha Arrowsmith chr.17 Feb 1780 Jenny Arrowsmith chr.6 Oct 1782 . The marriage of Thomas Arrowsmith III to Alicia Eliza Meager was recorded at Cuxton, Kent on 4 Sep 1803. [ Bishops Transcripts, Chatham 1794 - 1812 ; IGI Batch no.M135182 Cuxton]	Family of James Meager and Jane Grant James Meager and Jane Grant were married on 15 Jul 1780 in the church at Milton next Sittingbourne, about ten miles eastwards of Chatham. In the absence of any conflicting information James and Jane are believed to have had the following children : Alicia Eliza Meager b. 14 Jul 1782 chr.11 Aug 1782 in St Olave's, Southwark, Surrey, [IGI Batch #C022727] Mary Grant Meager, b.30 Mar 1784 in Milton next Sittingbourne, Kent [IGI -Batch #C034839] No other Alicia Eliza has been found, so it is assumed that there was only one, in spite of the discrepancies listed below.
Third Generation
Family of Thomas Arrowsmith III and Alicia Eliza Meager Thomas and Alicia were married on 4 Sep 1803 at Cuxton, a small village about two miles southwest of Rochester, on the R.Medway, which was presumably where Alicia was living at the time. She was born on 14 Jul and was baptised on 11 Aug 1782 at St Olave's in Southwark. No other person with her rather distinctive name has been found so it does look very likely that this entry in the IGI is hers. The marriage of Thomas Arrowsmith III to Alicia Eliza Meager was recorded at Cuxton, Kent on m. 4 Sep 1803. Bishops Transcripts, Chatham 1794 - 1812 ; IGI Batch no.M135182 Cuxton]. The first five children were all born in Chatham but none of the places are far away from each other, lying along the R.Medway. Most of the known birth or christening dates below are freely available on the site for Medway. 'City-Ark''. The parish clerk seems to have a problem with hearing and/or recognizing the name 'Alicia', three different versions being shown in italics after her children's names below, though of course spelling was not standardised at this time. The children with the 'incorrect' [Letitia/Elicia] names for their mother are marked in green. Alicia Mary Meager Arrowsmith (Alicia Eliza) chr. 29 Jul 1804 Thomas Arrowsmith IV(Letitia Elizabeth) chr. 13 Apr 1806 Sarah Prudence Arrowsmith ( Elicia Eliza) chr. 2 Apr 1809 Nicholas Arrowsmith (Alicia Eliza) b. 8 Nov 1812, chr. 11 Nov 1812 Jane Ellen Arrowsmith (Letitia Eliza) chr. 6 Apr 1817 Francis Arrowsmith (female) (Alicia Eliza) chr. 5 Dec 1819 St Margaret's, Rochester, Kent The name 'Alicia', or an alternative spelling in the family of 'Alecia', has continued in use at least once in every generation of descendants to date (i.e. five more than those listed here) without anyone apparently being aware that it was a 'family' name with a long pedigree!
The tree above shows the relationships between the various families involved in Chancery (below). The two names in grey are so far speculative but it is assumed as a 'working hypothesis' that Prudence and Thomas March 'belong' in the 2nd generation and that the others in that all shown as in that generation were siblings or cousins. (Even if not the same generation, they were all related!) William and Mary Matson had 8 children some born in Ashford. Jane, next after Prudence, was born in Milton next Sittingbourne'. Others associated with the village through birth or marriage were Jane and Mary Grant, James Meager, Mary Grant Meager and also John Smith. (Milton is only a few miles from Chatham and Rochester, both places where the Arrowsmiths were born, on that side of Sittingbourne)
'March v. Russell' A summary of the case in Chancery. The main inter-related people involved are shown in bold. The original document has been transcribed (presumably by OCR, with some odd results) and is printed in full online. It can easily be found by googling "Alicia Eliza Arrowsmith" in quotes. The case in Chancery stemmed from a deed made in 1807 by Thomas and Prudence March appointing George Russell and George Hodgson as trustees for a 'sum of stock' for the benefit of their children, then infants. Thomas March's wife Prudence was the third of six daughters of William Matson and Mary, born on 1 Oct 1777 in Kent, probably in Ashford. Thomas and Prudence had three children according to the report, Mary Prudence chr. 7 Apr 1799 in Deptford) George Thomas b.14 Feb, chr. 27 May 1801 John, b. abt 1803 By 1833 George and John were said to be 'the only children' of Thomas and Prudence. The proceedings in Chancery began in 1817 to find out what had happened to the stock but no-one seemed to know where it had gone. In 1810 Thomas Grant replaced Hodgson, and soon after transferred the stock, 'a sum of 1000 Navy 5% Bank Annuities' held in their joint names (Russell and Grant) into the name of the other trustee, Russsell, only. The solicitors representing Thomas and Prudence March wrote to Grant asking for the stock to be replaced. Grant replied to Mrs March (at no.33 Moffatt St, City Road, London) with a string of excuses about why this hadn't been done, referring to the stock 'which you so much wished me to let Mr Russell have.' He wrote that it was ---- 'in estates and business...the sooner I can buy in the stocks the better it will be for me as they keep rising...' .......' it could not be your wish to distress me...it would put me to considerable inconvenience to buy in the stocks immediately...' ----'I understood you, when I was in town, that if the interest was regularly paid you would be satisfied....' ----'When I returned from London I was attacked with inflammation on my lungs which laid me up for some time...' ----'I am sorry to say that Mrs Matson is very ill...' In 1818 the March family filed a bill in Chancery against Russell and Grant but Russell gave additional security for interest both in the past and for the future and Grant killed off the bill with a rather suspicious document apparently signed by Thomas and Prudence March, 'expressly authorising him to transfer the stock to his co-trustee, Russell.' (The 'signatures' were perhaps just crosses. Alicia Eliza only signed her will with a cross.) Will of Thomas Grant However ill Sarah Matson was in 1817, she managed to survive until 1830. It was Thomas Grant who died, just two years later, in 1820. His executors were Sarah Matson, Russell and John Perkins. Thomas left much of his personal estate to his sister Sarah Matson, and out of what was left after his debts were paid, a third to Sarah, one third to Mary Smith (nee Meager), and one third to Alicia Eliza Arrowsmith (nee Meager), wife of Thomas Arrowsmith. Alicia was to receive one third of that share and the rest was to be invested and the interest paid to her. After her death the capital was to be shared out among her children. (It should be noted of course that women could not own property in their own name, not even the clothes they wore - everything would go to their husband when they married - so it was usually given as an investment in trust, thus being protected from 'intermeddling' by the husband) Will of Sarah Matson (formerly Grant) Sarah Prudence Arrowsmith was her 'residuary legatee'. Whereabouts not known at present Will of Mary Smith (formerly Grant) Mary Smith also died. Her executors were George Ray and her son John Grant Smith who both also proved her will, but it looks as though her personal estate was very small.(The year is not given and a will with such a name is practically impossible to find!) In 1833 George and John March, the children, filed a new bill in Chancery, against Russell, Perkins, Thomas and Alicia Arrowsmith, their daughter Sarah Prudence Arrowsmith, and Alicia's other children, and also against their own parents, Thomas and Prudence, against Ray and against John Grant Smith, but the latter was 'out of the jurisdiction of the court.' The Master of the Rolls found for the two March children, ordering the way in which was owed them should be made good out of the various estates, a very complicated affair, and awarded costs to be paid by Russell and the other defendants. All of them, except for Russell and the March parents promptly appealed. The proceedings which followed were further complicated by an argument over precedent where a breach of trust was involved - what was the situation in previous cases where the Plaintiffs were under age (being only ten and eight) when the situation first arose. Would the lapse of time itself contribute towards invalidating their demands? Had they been aware of what was happening and had they 'acquiesced' in a breach of trust? They argued the case from many examples of similar actions in the past. Eventually the appeal was finally dismissed, with costs. It seems to have been the best the judges thought could be done in the circumstances. (Could anyone could be really sure what had happened to the stocks? They had been transferred and reinvested so many times in different names - some of it had even been changed at one point to a mortgage. Sarah Prudence Arrowsmith seemed only to have received 'the clear surplus of Sarah Matson's estate, namely £129 15s 1d (or 11d.?) It was eventually decided that the lapse of time since the original Bill in 1817 was no bar to the March brothers' claim for repayment, both being now 'of age', as they had been underage then and could not be expected to have agreed to something they didn't understand, to the funds remaining in the wrong hands or to acquiescing in a breach of trust. The appeal was dismissed with costs. Mary Smith, Alicia ahd her daughter Sarah, would have had to repay all that they had received, though it seems unlikely that they had any idea that they weren't entitled to any of it. Will of Alicia Eliza Arrowsmith In her will, dated 1844, Alicia Eliza identifies her daughters as Jane Ellen, Sarah Prudence and ffrances (the ff being an old usage for F) Both the 1841 census and the Citation of March v. Russell give theArrowsmith address as Burton St, Middlesex and Alicia's will states that she was then a widow.
'Conflict' on the 1841 Census (taken in June that year)
Address - not found elsewhere. Ages of the Chatham Arrowsmiths according to their birth records should be: Alicia Eliza Arrowsmith (mother, presumably widowed as Thomas can't be found) aged 56 as the only one of this name Sarah (Prudence) aged 32 Jane (Ellen) aged 24, Francis (female) aged 21. All were born in Chatham so would also be 'out of County' in Westminster. Perhaps it was the servant, Louisa Povey who gave wrong ages to the enumerator!	Address: No. 3 Burton St in Belgrave, Westminster, in the parish of St George, Hanover Sq. Alicia Arrowsmith aged 56, marked as 'Ind.', i.e. Independent Sarah aged 24, Jane aged 22 Francis (female) aged 16 a servant Louisa Povey. All of them were born out of the county. [ RG number:HO107 Piece:732 Book/Folio:6/44 Page:8 ]