Home » Posts tagged 'Bethel Union'
Tag Archives: Bethel Union
George Collison Tuting (1814-1892)
an aspiring but ordinary nineteenth-century colonist
George Collison Tuting was not an outstanding figure in nineteenth-century NSW. Coming to the colony he hoped to better himself and his family in the drapery business which was a trade he knew well. On arrival he was socially well connected through marriage to the Farmer family (Farmers & Co). He was welcomed into the Pitt Street Congregational Church’s merchant circle (including G A Lloyd, Alfred Fairfax, David Jones) and while he had great aspirations he failed to convert them into business success. His early philanthropic endeavours were quickly extinguished by his failure in business; bankruptcy does not enhance one’s ability to be philanthropic. In the latter phase of his life, having obtained a certain level of financial stability, he gave of his time to help organize various philanthropic activities mostly promoting spiritual engagement.
Tuting was born in Beverley, Yorkshire, England, in January 1814 and was the son of Jeremiah Tuting, variously a cordwainer (shoemaker) and sexton of St Marys’ Church, Beverley, and Sarah Collison.[1] In 1841, George married Eliza Bolton (1817-1847) and they had 5 children: William Collison (1841-1918), George Bolton (1843-1843), Eliza Bolton Kent (1844-1883), Emily Sarah Parsons (1846-1924) and Henry Gutteridge (1847-1847). Eliza died in March 1847[2] and on 9 February 1848, George married Mary Petford nee Farmer (1804-1868), the widow of Jason Petford, a draper in Brierley Hill. Mary and Jason, had married in 1827[3] and had two daughters: Mary (1834-1858) and Amelia (1843–1928).
The Tuting family left England 8 November 1849, on the Prince of Wales and arrived in Sydney on 21 February 1850. The family group consisted of George and his wife Mary and George’s son William, his daughters Eliza and Emily, his nephew Thomas Shires Tuting together with Mary’s two daughters, Mary and Amelia.[4]
In England
George was a draper and his first shop was in the Market Place, Beverley, and while it is unknown when he began business, the first evidence of its existing is from 10 April 1840 when he sought to commend his goods to the public through the distribution of printed hand bills.[5] He was a religious man who, when advertising for staff, made a point of indicating that ‘a man of piety will be preferred’[6] and when seeking an apprentice gave the assurance that his ‘Moral and Religious training will be strictly attended to, as well as receiving a thorough knowledge of the Business.’[7] He was, as a churchman, a Congregationalist attending the Independent Chapel, Beverley, and later at Brierley Hill.[8]
It would appear that George was interested in missions, financially supporting a young Indian man from 1846-1849 so that he could undergo training for ministry at Bangalore, India.[9] He also gave money to a Medical Institution[10] and towards the building of a Mission College in Hong Kong.[11] The Missionary Magazine and Chronicle, a publication mostly concentrating on the work of the London Missionary Society, was itself largely supported by Independent Churches. That his financial support of missions was recorded in this publication is consistent with his churchmanship being congregational.
(more…)Charles Nightingale (1795-1860), Edward Ramsay (1818-1894) and James Druce (1829-1891)
Charles Nightingale (1795-1860), Edward Ramsay (1818-1894) and James Druce (1829-1891) Charity Collectors
Obtaining funding for the work of the various nineteenth century philanthropic organisations was always a challenge. There was little government financial assistance available, and the various organisations were dependent upon the generosity of the public for financial support. In order to gain that support the many charities who wished to collect money from the public engaged in a number of activities and strategies. Prominent among their activities was the public annual meeting, often chaired by a socially important person, where the activities of the organisation were reported and supportive resolutions passed. At the meeting someone, usually the secretary of the committee, would read a report detailing what had been achieved in the year past, often giving encouraging examples of success as well as underlining the difficulty of the task which the charity had undertaken. Such reporting made the committee that ran the charity accountable to the public and to its subscribers. It also showed what had been achieved through public financial support, educated the community on the continuing need for the charity, and gave hope for success in the future so that there might be continued interest and increased financial support given by individuals.
Nineteenth century newspaper editors, at least up until the 1890s, gave very sympathetic treatment to such organisations and often printed extensive reports of the meetings which gave further publicity. Printing the annual reports of these organisations and circulating them to their subscribers was also a vital part of the strategy. Such documents contained the secretary’s report, a financial statement, the lists of subscribers and the amount of their subscription, and newspapers often printed subscriber and donation lists as well. It has been suggested that the existence of these subscriber lists is evidence that nineteenth century philanthropy was a morally approved way of self-aggrandisement.[1] Motives are difficult to determine and it may well be that, for some, giving was motived by being seen to have done the ‘right societal thing’ or by a desire to gain praise for the size of a donation. For others, however, such support was undoubtedly a response to need and a desire to help without any ulterior motive. From the organisations’ point of view, it was an effective means of giving a receipt and perhaps a means of encouraging (more…)
Mary Roberts nee Muckle (1804-1885)
Mary Roberts nee Muckle (1804-1885), Property holder, Philanthropist and Publican.
Jane Muckle (1784-1834), who was the mother of Mary Roberts (nee Muckle), arrived in New South Wales on the Nile in December 1801 as an unmarried 17 year old convict. Some sources record that she had been convicted at Cork in August, 1796, and sentenced to 7 years servitude in the colony of NSW, but other accounts date her conviction as July, 1799, at Durham.[1] On 25 June, 1804, Mary was born[2] to Jane and the father was registered as a Thomas Rowley.[3] There is no evidence that Jane and Thomas were married and nothing further is heard about him. Jane took the designation of Mrs Muckle and retained it until she married some twenty-two years later.[4]
In July, 1806, Jane became a free person as she had completed her sentence and was recorded as living with Archibald McKillup.[5] By 1810, Jane had obtained a ‘Beer License’ for an establishment in Phillip Street[6] and while no longer holding a licence by 1825, she was still involved in the running of a public house with Archibald, probably the “Lord Nelson” in Phillip Street.[7] Jane was experiencing financial success for in June 1823 she gained five 21 year leases on land in Phillip, Hunter and Elizabeth streets[8] and in 1824 was able to make an interest free loan of £300 to Rev John Dunmore Lang for Scots Church.[9] On 6 March, 1826, she married Archibald [10] and she died eight years later on April 12, 1834. Archibald’s death followed the next year on October 26, 1835, by which time Jane’s daughter Mary Muckle was running the public house. On Archibald’s death the Tavern’s fixtures were disposed of but Mary continued to own the tavern, which was leased to others, right up until her death some 50 years later.
Little is known of Mary’s early life. She became the heiress of extensive property holdings and was the object of some unwanted attention by suitors, one such proclaiming to her that ‘she had remained long enough unmarried, and could not do better than have him’. Mary’s stepfather was ill at this time and she informed the would-be-suitor ‘that her father was seriously unwell, and was disturbed by his loud talk, and begged him to drink his liquor and depart from the house, but which only served to induce him to continue his familiarity’. She, in response to this unwanted attention, gave ‘a becoming and spirited resistance’ resulting in the ardent would-be-suitor only becoming more aggressive and ‘calling her a _________ and using opprobrious and obscene expressions’. Mary then threw a jug of boiling water at him, the suitor was injured, and brought a charge of assault and battery against her. The jury found the case proven, but it would seem they thought the suitor deserved his fate for Mary only had to pay damages of a farthing.[11] (more…)
Philanthropists and Philanthropy 