by Sheila Hardy
Diagnosed as suffering from ‘Mania’, Arthur entered St Luke’s on 2 November 1878, his father paying 14s a week for his maintenance.
Almost four years were to pass before he was discharged by the hospital on 8 September 1882 as ‘relieved but not cured’. The hospital records show that the request for his discharge came from ‘friends’. This term is often used in Victorian times to indicate relatives but it is known that Arthur did have friends who had supported him throughout his illness. One of these was John Stainer, better known to us as Dr Stainer, the composer of the oratorio The Crucifixion. He had been organist at Magdalen College during the period that Arthur had been resident there but now he held the prestigious post at St Paul’s Cathedral. It was to Stainer’s lodgings that Arthur went when he left hospital. The musician being at St Paul’s at the time, Arthur was directed to seek him there. Accounts vary about what happened when the two men met. One version was that Stainer offered him accommodation for the night and sent him off next day to other ‘friends’. The other is that Stainer gave him the address of a relation who in turn gave him half a sovereign to pay for a bed in a hotel for the night.
His movements from his release until 1884 are unknown. It is possible that he returned to his father’s home in Burwash Weald in Kent, occasionally assisting with services and parish duties there. Certainly he was known and well liked by his father’s parishioners. When it seemed that he had sufficiently recovered, he became a curate for the parishes of River and Guston on the outskirts of Dover. That his father had held a similar post here some thirty years earlier suggests that the living was held by a family connection.
Was it here or at his father’s home that he became romantically involved? Wherever it was, the prospect of a liaison between his son and the daughter of a farmer did not meet with approval. The newspaper account which mentions this affair implied that the match was not allowed on grounds of class. It was reported that as one of Arthur’s sisters had just married into the upper echelons of Kent society, his forming an alliance with farming stock was unthinkable. It seems much more likely that in view of his history, his family thought it prudent he remain single. This episode may also account for certain actions which were taken later at Cretingham.
In the event, Arthur was sent again to Dorset, this time to the safe keeping of his widowed godfather, the Revd T.H. Roper, rector of Piddlehinton, a few miles from the county town of Dorchester. There he remained for nine months until 29 September 1886.
While he was at Piddlehinton, one imagines he would have been a regular visitor to Dorchester for shopping and entertainment. This is, I know, venturing into the realm of pure speculation, but it is very likely that on social occasions his path crossed that of the author Thomas Hardy. Dorset born Hardy and his wife had in 1885 taken up residence in their new home, Max Gate, Dorchester where the writer was working on The Woodlanders. What is probably more certain is that Arthur would have heard about the Revd Henry Moule who had been vicar of nearby Fordington. An academic with a leaning towards science, he had fathered eight sons, most of whom were to become distinguished in their chosen fields. One of them, Horace, had been a close friend and mentor of Thomas Hardy.
Arthur must surely have known the tragic story of how Horace, an inspector of the Poor Law had, in 1873, following a tour of inspection in Ipswich, gone on to visit his brother in his Cambridge college. Retiring early to bed, he ended his life by cutting his throat with a razor.
What is an even stranger coincidence is that there is a strong likelihood that Harriet Louisa’s first husband was related to the Revd Moule.
Just how much did the Revd and Mrs Farley know of the young man who was to become their curate immediately after leaving Dorset? Harriet was to say later that she had no knowledge of Arthur’s time in the asylum. She did know that ‘his mind was wrong’. She said that Archdeacon Groome read two letters to the Revd Farley which she had not heard. Her husband, she said, gave her the impression that the curate was ‘not quite right’ but perfectly safe. Her husband had said that he (the curate) was ‘a very worthy, good young man but a little weak. He was perfectly harmless.’
Did Farley accept him knowing that with his uncertain history, Arthur was likely to settle for a lower stipend than usual? Was the simple household of the elderly vicar and his wife considered a safe environment for Arthur? Whatever the circumstances surrounding his appointment, Arthur must have been considered fully capable as he was contracted to Farley to take complete control of parish work.
The curate was to live en-famille. Somewhat surprisingly, since the house had a number of bedrooms, he was given the one adjoining that of the vicar and his wife. Their room situated above the dining room had windows facing both south and east. A well proportioned chamber some 18ft x 15ft, it had leading from it a large, oblong dressing room almost 19ft x 10ft. It was here that Arthur was accommodated. The interconnecting door was, we are told, padlocked on the vicar’s side. Both rooms also opened onto the narrow landing. It seems to have been a feature of the house that most of the bedrooms had intercommunicating doors. Whether there was a bathroom in the house at that time is not known but Arthur certainly had a bathtub placed in his room at the foot of his bed. Of the rest of the furnishings, we know only that there was a dressing table with a looking glass upon it situated under his east-facing window. There was also a washstand and towel rail, hanging space for his clothes and a chair or two.
From later evidence, one gains the impression that the rest of the house was little used. Arthur used the dining room to sit and read, prepare his sermons or pen the occasional articles he contributed to the Ipswich Journal. Supper, we know, was taken in the kitchen and it may be that other meals were too. Harriet did not employ a cook so the responsibility for catering for the household would have fallen to her.
Arthur appears to have settled well to his duties. If there was any contention between him and his superior initially it was over the conduct of services. Farley was a Low Church man while Arthur leaned towards the High Church practices that were fashionable in that era. Farley had no time for weekly, let alone daily celebrations of the Holy Communion and the observing of saints’ days would have been anathema to him.
Arthur’s sermons may have been a bit too academic for the bulk of his parishioners but he certainly endeared himself personally to William Emmerson, the parish clerk who came to look upon him as a friend. Arthur was active in visiting the homes of the villagers and was popular enough for them to want to purchase the commemorative photograph of him which, like one of the vicar, was sold during a fund-raising effort for the church in September 1887. (Those who had one of these must have wondered later whether to hang on to it or destroy it. How much would one have been worth to members of the press?)
As for Harriet Louisa, she surely welcomed the diversion the newcomer offered. It must have been such a relief for her to have someone young and active with whom to talk and more importantly, to join her on daily walks and occasional excursions to the little market town of Framlingham. It was not long before the pair became a familiar sight in the village, walking together to and from services, making parish calls and taking health-giving constitutionals. That she came to regard Arthur with affection we shall hear later.
She did not, however, share his passion for tennis. Perhaps the game provided Arthur with his only means of escape from her. She, ever solicitous, was concerned that he would overtire himself with all the walking back and forth to a neighbouring village to join in tennis parties. During the early summer of 1887 she did have some justification for her concern. June that year was excessively hot. Professor Grant of the Glasgow Observatory described the great heat of the third week of the month as phenomenal, prevailing ‘throughout the whole week with an intensity which, for the month of June has not been paralleled during the last quarter of a century, and probably has not been unsurpassed during a much longer period.’ The highest temperature was reached on the 25 June when the maximum in the shade was 82.7F a
nd the maximum in the sun was 133.2F. The lowest reading was on the 20th when it was 65.9F in the shade and 118.5F in the sun. During the days of the 23rd, 24th and 25th, it was above 130F in the sun.
His physical welfare apart, was some of Harriet Louisa’s concern not concentrated upon the much younger ladies who were present at these gatherings?
There were two other occupants of the vicarage, both vital to the running of the household and important in the events that were to follow. Twenty-one-year-old Francis Bilney, known as Frank, was employed as valet to both the vicar and the curate as well as acting as groom. The maid-of-all work position may well have been an unenviable one since the turnover rate was quite high. Mary Friend had the job when Arthur arrived at the vicarage, but she was replaced by Annie Eade, who in turn gave way to Annie Wightman. Both servants lived-in, occupying rooms on the second floor approached by stairs leading from the domestic quarters of the house.
On Sunday 21 August 1887 Arthur took the weekly service at which he read for the second time the banns of marriage for Lilian, daughter of Noah Nesling, one of the local farmers. The following day he was given a holiday, albeit a working one. His destination was Piddlehinton where his godfather, the Revd Roper, was ill. During his five week absence he ‘rendered valuable assistance to his host and his health and conduct alike were satisfactory’.
He returned to Cretingham in time to baptize Hugh and Sarah Lockwood’s daughter, Lizzie after he had conducted the Harvest Festival services on 25 September. The Suffolk Chronicle in its edition for Saturday 1 October reported that at Cretingham:
The church had been tastefully decorated by Mrs Farley and other ladies and at the morning service the Revd A E Gilbert-Cooper had preached an excellent and suitable sermon from the words ‘Behold the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth’ (James 5:7)
Little did the reporter realize that in the following week’s issue the Revd Gilbert-Cooper would be making the headlines.
Harriet Louisa was delighted to see the return of the curate, not least because over recent days, her husband’s health had deteriorated. Farley had become so infirm that he needed the assistance of Frank Bilney to get out of bed where he now spent most of the time. On Tuesday, 27 September, Harriet Louisa who seems to have struck up a correspondence with Arthur’s mother wrote to her telling how glad she was that they had her son back with them. He had, she wrote, been greatly missed in the parish where he was so bright and cheerful. Mr Cooper’s heart, she said, was so good and she felt he was one of God’s own children. Was there a hint in this letter that Mrs Gilbert-Cooper might suspect too much partiality on her behalf, for she went on to stress that Mr Farley was also glad to have him back. The vicar, she continued, had affirmed that his own family could not behave better towards him or be more kind and gentle. This same kindness and gentle approach made him so good at visiting the sick parishioners.
Becoming more confidential in her tone, as one woman to another, she added that she was well aware of Arthur’s (she, of course, called him Mr Cooper in her letter) ‘little faults and failings.’ She had told him to be more watchful and to try to keep himself closer to his Great Master. She was concerned about his health as was the vicar who had told him he was overtiring himself. She was of the opinion that he had over-exerted himself in the summer with all the walking to play tennis. She finished by saying that at times Arthur was fretful.
This letter, which starts so full of her delight in the return of her young companion, hints that everything is not quite right. Something has happened in the three or four days since Arthur’s return for he himself had written earlier to Dorset to say how well he felt. What was Mrs Gilbert-Cooper to make of Harriet’s letter as she read it over the breakfast table? If she heard warning bells, then they would have been reinforced by the letter, written the same day, that Arthur sent to his father to wish him a happy birthday. After the greetings, Arthur described in some detail the Harvest Celebration and the sermon he had preached. Both parents must have been concerned when they read:
I am all mops and brooms, and have been for the last fortnight. I cannot understand why, as I have been very regular and abstemious, and I am not at all the thing, and I thought perhaps it was smoking too much. I have knocked it off, but the good results have not yet shown themselves. My nights might be a good deal better than they are. However, I must keep out in the open air as much as possible, and interest myself in my work and I hope it will gradually pass off.
This very intimate paragraph reveals a great deal. It shows the relationship between father and son was such that Arthur felt able to confide his feelings, yet there is almost a childlike quality to his description of the regular and abstemious habits. Then, grown-up again, he attempted to take charge of himself, looking for a cure for his sleepless nights in fresh air, exercise and hard work. What is perhaps even more interesting is that Arthur appears to have been suffering from nicotine withdrawal symptoms. In believing that excessive smoking was causing his depression – his ‘mops and brooms’, by giving it up, he exacerbated the situation. It is a chilling thought that if Arthur had continued to puff away, the Revd Farley might not have died when he did!
On Friday 30 September Harriet accompanied Arthur on a visit to the home of William Emmerson, the parish clerk, where Arthur administered the last rites to Emmerson’s dying son. Emmerson was full of praise for the concern and kindness shown by Arthur to the grieving parents and the bereaved young widow. He saw no sign of the curate not being ‘right in the head’, as Mrs Farley had suggested to him as she was leaving.
Again I ask, what, apart from Arthur’s abstinence from smoking, precipitated events in that final week? What changed Harriet Louisa from being delighted to have Arthur’s merry, childlike presence with her to her concerted attempt to convince him and those around him that he was not quite right in the head?
In spite of writing to Mrs Gilbert-Cooper that Farley was glad to have him back, there is a suggestion that Farley was abusive towards him and that on at least one occasion he had even attempted to strike him. Harriet was later to say that this had been because Farley was upset over some family business. Had Farley decided that the curate’s position in the household had become untenable or was it Harriet Louisa who wanted Arthur out of the way? Either way, she now set about convincing Arthur that he was not well and could not cope with his church duties. The vicar, she told him, intended to advertise in the Guardian for another curate to assist them for a few weeks. But, so she said, she had assured Arthur he could stay on with them and perhaps after a while ‘he would be better’.
Her concern – or threat – worried Arthur, for later, on Friday, he wrote to his father saying, ‘I must be careful or I shall be incapacitated from carrying on my work here and then I don’t know what I shall do’. Here was yet another cause for his inability to sleep.
It is possible that he was not the only one suffering from disturbed nights. On the morning of Saturday, 1 October, Harriet Louisa gave orders for a couch to be taken up to the marital bedroom. This was placed at the foot of the bed and it was there she intended to rest that night. It is quite feasible that Farley’s restlessness was depriving them both of sleep.
Arthur spent most of the day in the dining room reading and writing. Harriet Louisa divided her time between the kitchen and her husband’s room, where, during the late afternoon and early evening, she read aloud. It says something about the timbre of her voice or the construction of the house that Arthur was reputed to have complained to her later that her reading to the vicar had irritated him.
At some point during the evening she allegedly had a discussion with Arthur about his fitness to take the following day’s service. She was of the opinion that she should send a note to the Revd Allen of Winston, asking him to come and take the duty. At about eight o’clock, Emmerson called at the vicarage. As parish clerk, it was his duty to collect the Communion plate from the vicarage safe ready for the Sacrament service which fell that Sunday. Emme
rson did not see the curate but talked in the kitchen with Mrs Farley who reiterated her fears for Arthur’s state of mind. She mentioned to him the possibility that a deputy might be taking the service so Emmerson decided that, if that was the case, he would leave the silver where it was and come early the next day.
For whatever reason, Harriet did not write the invitation to the Revd Winston to officiate. After Emmerson had left, she summoned Arthur to join her in the kitchen for supper. In her solicitude for his welfare, she tried to tempt his poor appetite with oxtail soup, made especially for him. But even this delicacy failed and he ate sparingly.
At nine o’clock they were joined by Frank Bilney and Annie Wightman for family prayers which were read by Arthur. Neither maid nor manservant was aware that there was anything untoward in Arthur’s behaviour.
Having said goodnight to each one, the mistress of the house left the kitchen by one door and mounted the front stairs to her room. The servants went to their quarters in the attic using the back staircase as did Arthur to gain access to his room next door to his employer.
By just after ten o’clock, the stillness of night descended upon the vicarage.
2
SUNDAY 2 OCTOBER 1887
Only three people were privy to the momentous event which was to disturb the peace of the vicarage as Saturday turned into Sunday 2 October. Of those, one was soon to be dead while the second was to remain almost silent upon the subject. Only Harriet Louisa Farley ever described in any detail what had occurred; she being the principal witness at the coroner’s inquest and the subsequent trials which followed it.
At about fifteen minutes past midnight, Frank Bilney heard his mistress calling to him from the foot of the attic stairs. Still half asleep and in his nightshirt, he came down to be told that his master was ill and in need of urgent medical attention. Harriet Louisa took him into the bedroom where he saw the vicar lying face down on the floor, having apparently fallen out of bed. He must have leaned over the body for he assured himself that Farley was still breathing. He was not aware of any blood flowing and Harriet Louisa said nothing beyond urging him to dress and go as fast as he could to Framlingham, some four miles away, to fetch Dr Jones. As Frank passed the open door of Arthur’s room, he heard what he later described as ‘moaning noises’. That he was at that time totally ignorant of there being anything amiss with his master’s ‘accident’ is borne out by the fact that during the course of his journey, he passed the local policeman but did not stop to inform him of what had occurred. After his departure, Harriet Louisa attempted to raise her husband’s head and cradle him in her arms and in so doing she discovered that he was haemorrhaging severely from the throat. In a matter of minutes he was dead.