"...Walter Watts' wife furnished Lingsey with a petticoat, white apron, and head clothes that he might look something like a woman. One Rolfe Smith of Luckington was the midwife. The invited company which was numerous pleased themselves with the ale and good things. Lingsey by their assistance and the skill of the midwife was delivered of a child viz. a wad of shaw made up and dressed with clothes in that form which they pretended was a male child.."

The company rejoiced at the "birth" and drank more ale and resolved to have it christened and chose Samuel Wallis to be parson. He was dressed in a white apron to represent a surplice. He went through as much of the service as he could remember and christened the child whom the "godfathers" called George and threw water over it, signed it with the sign of the cross and said the ritual words of baptism. According to another witness the words used were instead

"I christen thee George Buggerer and you are to live in that religion and no other"

And the witness adds

"...after the ceremony was over the curate sprinkled his congregation with all the consecrated water that remained which amounted to a benediction as good as the Pope's"

This is a letter of a Francis Goodenough to Holford about the same events:-

28th November 1716
Sir Richard, I have yours of the 22nd instant and accordingly as you desire have endeavoured to find out George Andrew's case which as I am informed from those I dare rely on is thus: in May last one William Lingsey or some such name, an inhabitant and poor man's son of the City of Gloucester and about 20 years old came to Westonbirt and enquired of your tenant Andrews for work in husbandry and offered his service. They told him they had no occasion for him and being wholly a stranger and unknown dismissed him with that answer. The fellow went thence and in like manner offered himself to Walter Watts, he bargained with him and received him into his home and service in husbandry. In August last there was whispering about Westonbirt as if George A had buggered this fellow but I do not find that many people did believe it, yet upon this noise Isaac Humphrys got a sack of malt to be brewed and made a vessel of very good ale and some others contributed and bought some joints of meat and other belly-timber suitable to their pretended occasion and on the 22nd of September last had a mock lying-in by the fellow at Westonbirt. Abundance of fellows fit for such diversion were invited to assist at this groaning by Charles Embly. Walter Watt's wife furnished Lingsey with a Mantua petticoat, white apron, and head clothes that he might look something like a woman. One Rolf, a smith of Luckington, was the midwife. After the invited company which was numerous had pleased themselves with the ale and good things, Lingsey by their assistance and the skill of the midwife was delivered of a child, viz a wad of shaw....and dressed in clothes in that form which they pretended was a male child whereupon the company drank plentifully and rejoiced exceedingly at the birth and after a little.....resolved to have the child christened and pitched upon one of their company Samuel Wallis by name ( a fraudulent fellow) to be Parson who some say carried the child to the churchyard and there (for he could not get into the church) after he had performed so much of the form of baptism as he could remember christened the child whom the godfathers whose names I do not know (for there was no godmother) named George the pretended parson threw water upon it signed it with the sign of the cross and said I baptise thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. After this was done the company fell to their rejoicing and continued their mirth until the barrel was empty and then they sent and invited some of the women of the place to wake with the lying-in woman as they termed Lingsey. This being all over things were at quiet for neither George Andrews nor any of that family took any notice of it. But when George took Walter Watts pulling down his hedge and throwing open the inclosure he reproved him for doing it and some time after that delivered the letter to Watts and as some say gave out that Lingsey had disgraced him and spoiled his good fortune and that he would remedy himself by a suit at law or to that effect. Hereupon Lingsey with Walter Watts went to Mr Kingscote for a warrant to arrest George for buggery. A warrant was issued, George thereupon taken and carried before Mr Stevens who would not meddle with it because he did not grant the warrant. Then they went to Mr Kingscote from whom they had the warrant and Mr Swinfin Clerk happened to be there at the same time. Lingsey was examined on oath and said that on the 4th of August last or thereabout at 12 of the clock at night or about that time after George's brother John was gone with their waggon to Coal Pit he the said Lingsey was lying or sitting on Burklemore Bridge by himself. That George came to him and took him by the hand and said to him you have a very soft hand. And after he had felt his hand a little time George put his hand in Lingsey's breeches. These complements being over George invited the fellow to go up to his house and lodge with him all night or to drink with him there. That he consented and went with George and got into the cellar and there drank a little but not to excess and then went to bed together. And that George buggered him the aforesaid Lingsey who at first said he consented but upon some nod afterwards retreated these words before the Justice. ..... Ball was another witness he swore that the morrow after 4th August or there about Lingsey asked him where did he think that he had been last night. Ball replied he did not know, and then asked him where he had been. Said Lingsey "I lodged with George Andrews and he rode me." One Burge, a servant to Mr Nathaniel Watts, swore to the same purpose as Ball did only instead of "rode me" Lingsey did say to him "bugger me". Parson Swinfin was very hot but Mr Kingscote was altogether as cool. After some debate George was bound over. His two brothers are his bail and the fellow is bound to prosecute at the next Quarter Session at Gloucester. Sir, this is the truest history I can get at present of this nasty affair which I cannot believe to be true but a villainy contrived and set on foot on purpose to revenge on George and disable him if possible to do himself right in a legal course. ......... Dame Andrews and her family do affirm solemnly that this Lingsey was never in their house. It is to be observed that this fellow never opposed George in his nasty attempt, never cried out or made any noise to awaken or call up any of the family for his rescue but by his own confession freely consented. If this be true George and he are equally guilty and ought to suffer alike. Neither doth it appear that this fellow did ever shew any marks of George's manhood or complain of any soreness etc and why was the prosecution delayed almost four months where by the law it ought to have been made a good while sooner and perhaps if George had not threatened to have the fellow punished for scandalously abusing and slandering of him you would never have heard of this occasion.

The above are extracted from my article
"18th Century Correspondence from Westonbirt"
Glos.Historical Studies X (Bristol University Press)

• WESTONBIRT
• WESTONBIRT HISTORY 1

Last update 19/03/2001