The following story of Francis Edenborough was reported in The Morning Chronicle of 6 October 1859 under the heading:

POLICE INTELLIGENCE – Marylebone

Francis Edenborough and his partners in crime were brought before the Central Criminal Court on 25 October 1859 whereby the jury returned a verdict of guilty against Alfred Grantham Snr, William Bland and Thomas Mead, recommending Bland and Grantham to mercy, and acquitting Alfred Grantham Jnr and Francis Edenborough.

The son of a railway guard, Alfred Thomas Edenborough was born 12 January 1857 at Paddington, London, MDX.

The 1871 census shows the then 14-year-old Alfred Thomas working as a telegraph messenger in the postal service where he remained until joining the London Metropolitan Police at Great Scotland Yard on 3 June 1878. He was subsequently posted to K Division (Stepney) as a constable.

The Metropolitan Police was established in 1829 by Sir Robert Peel, the then Home Secretary, by an Act of Parliament. It must have seemed to be a worthy occupation, as within a year of establishment the force numbered 3000 men from an initial recruitment of 895 constables, 88 sergeants, 20 inspectors, eight superintendents and two commissioners of police.

By the 1881 census, Alfred Thomas had been posted to Y Division (Highgate) where he was to remain for two years before being moved on to A Division (Whitehall) for eight months.

Following his eight-month stint as a constable at A Division, Alfred was then transferred to T Division (Kensington). He would remain at T Division until his retirement on 29 April 1901 at the age of 44 years following 22 years, 10 months and 25 days of service.

Attached to his service number were the letters TR which means that Alfred Thomas was part of the Reserve Force.  The Reserve was the top class to which a constable could aspire without taking promotion.  Many older officers achieved this and they would be used on all the prestigious London events and had to maintain a higher standard of dress, conduct and turn out than other officers.

His pension record provides the following physical description of Alfred Thomas:

Height: 6 feet 0 inches
Hair: Fair turning grey – bald on top
Eyes: Grey
Complexion: Fresh
Never injured

Alfred Thomas married Mary Ann Smith, the daughter of a butcher, at St Peter’s Church, Paddington, MDX, on 24 May 1882. Over the next 15 years they were to have seven children: Alfred E, Annie M, Lizzie J, Matilda G, Daisy, Rosa A and Harold T.

Among the many cases that Alfred Thomas was no doubt involved in, was the following murder/suicide reported in The Times of 5 February 1879:¹

Alfred Thomas Edenborough died at 26 Perrymead Street, Fulham, on 19 September 1923 aged 66 years and was buried at North Sheen Cemetery five days later.

¹ “Murder And Suicide”, Times, [London, England], 5 Feb 1879, p11.

The following obituary appeared in the Morning Post of 21 November 1865:

DEATH OF A VETERAN SURGEON – On the 15th inst., Mr William Edenborough, formerly of Coleman-street, departed this life at his residence, Upper Holloway, after much suffering, in his 86th year. Mr Edenborough was one of the oldest, if not the oldest, as he was also (up to his retirement from active life, 10 years ago) one of the most respected and best known City medical practitioners. The deceased, a native of Nottingham, was articled to Mr Hunt of Loughborough, a man of much eminence in his day. So far back as the commencement of the present century, Mr Edenborough entered St Thomas’s and Guy’s, where he made the acquaintance of the eminent surgeon, Mr Cline, and also that of Sir Astley Cooper, who was then commencing his distinguished career. Mr Edenborough had a large and successful practice for nearly half a century, and included amongst his patients many of the first bankers and merchants and other celebrities of the City. He was a man of great decision and indomitable energy, and, as a consequence, rarely failed in accomplishing any object of benevolence on which he once set his heart. His extensive practice – ranging over so lengthened a period – naturally presented numerous cases of distress to his notice, to which he ever lent a ready ear, and generally afforded effective aid. The deceased has left a widow to mourn his loss.

74 Coleman Street, London, 2013 – surgery premises of William Edenborough

Until the early 20th century, a man’s promise of engagement to marry a woman was considered a legally binding contract. If the man was to then change his mind, he would be said to be in “breach” of this promise and could be taken to court for damages.

The following case was reported in the Evening Express on 4 May 1895.

JILTED BY HER JOURNALIST LOVER

His Love-Letters Were Many and Sweet and He Burst Into Poetry Once

Mrs Fanny Elizabeth EDENBOROUGH, a widow, living at Cadogan Lodge, Cadogan-road, Surbiton, brought an action on Friday before the Sheriffs of Surrey against Mr Lionel Rupert Brocklebank, a journalist, living at Christ Church Vicarage, Chesham, for damages for breach of promise of marriage.
Mr Wildey Wright appeared for the plaintiff, a pre-possessing young widow of ladylike appearance.
The plaintiff, said Mr Wright, was not yet 27 years of age. She was married when she was seventeen or eighteen, and her husband, who occupied a very good position in the City, died early in 1892, leaving her with two young children, and with an income of £150 to £200 a year.
In July, 1894, she went to a little village near Polruan, in Cornwall, to stay with some friends, and while there she met the defendant. Defendant was very attentive to her, and took her for boating and driving excursions.
On September 26 defendant came from Polruan to the house of his brother-in-law, now Vicar of Christchurch, Chesham. The following day he visited Mrs Edenborough at Surbiton, and then and there made a formal proposal of marriage.
A few days after the engagement he wrote to her, addressing her as “My own darling Ponte,” a name he had given her after a river in Cornwall, and telling her that he was writing a short tale in “Tit-Bits”. He concluded, “With all my love and kisses, my own dearest darling, loved little girl, from your ever loving Rupert.” (Laughter.) In another letter which he wrote soon afterwards he asked her to “kiss the kiddies for me, my darling,” and concluded in the same endearing language.
In the next letter, after writing to her in similar language, he said: “My brother-in-law has just gone out to marry a couple. How I wish it were you and I! I will get him to do the job for us soon. What do you think?” (Laughter.) In another letter he said his sister had “pumped” all the news of his engagement out of him, and signed himself as “Your own loving boy.”
Other letters began in the same way as the former ones, and ended, “My own dearest, truest, darling, loved, treasured, precious pet, from your ever-loving Rupert.” (Laughter.)
On October 28 the defendant wrote the following letter: “My very own dearest Ponte – Your darling letter arrived, which I was very pleased to receive, dear heart. I am glad you agree with my sister in thinking I will make a good husband. Dearest, I will try, and if I don’t succeed it won’t be my fault. Yesterday I had a good day’s writing. I wrote an article on – what do you think, dear – ‘How to Propose’. (Laughter.) I hope ‘Answers’ will take it. I am sure it’s amusing enough, if not instructive. I have let out all the secrets of the trade, darling. (Laughter.) In another letter he said: I would rather spend one evening with you, my darling little sweetheart, than attend all the balls and amusements I could cram into a month.
On November 29 he broke out into poetry: I cannot work, I cannot play, There’s nothing left worthwhile to say, The hours are long, the days are dear, Oh, how I wish my love were near – My love’s away. The time will come, also the day, When I shall go down Kingston way, To see my darling once again, And join the links of an unbroken chain – With love away. (Laughter.)   Towards the end of December the defendant’s letters got cooler. Before this, however, defendant had told plaintiff that he had previously been engaged to another lady, the daughter of a wealthy lady in Manchester. Owing to the parent’s objection, the match was broken off. The defendant also bought plaintiff two rings, which the other lady had returned to him, but she indignantly refused to accept such second-hand goods, and he apologised for offering them to her. When plaintiff wrote asking the reason of his coolness, he replied on New Year’s Day that he was afraid he had made a mistake in engaging himself to her, and his thoughts were constantly reverting to the other young lady at Manchester.

The jury awarded the plaintiff £250 damages.   Judgment accordingly.