Bailey Family

The Bailey family connects with the Man family when on 30 October 1830 Mary Ann Bailey married James Matthews at St. Nicholas, Cole Abbey, London. Of this marriage a daughter, Katherine Jane Matthews, was born 9 March 1843 and on 26 December 1867 she married Edward Garnet Man. The following notes on the Bailey family are thanks to Ian Wallace.

The Bailey Family of Southampton

A) The presumed family.

The present position is that we are confident three persons with the surname Bailey born in the Southampton area are related:-

John Bailey, a dyer of Lambeth, on the basis of census information was born in Southampton in about 1796. The census also shows his widowed mother, Elizabeth, born in Southampton in about 1770 was living with him in 1851. He married a woman from Tichfield near Southampton, called Sarah, born in about 1796. Family tradition records that his son, John Bailey (Junior), worked for Grindlay’s Bank. John Bailey (Junior) married a woman called Jane Beevor Roll who was the daughter of a Mary Matthews. Mary was the first cousin of James Matthews.

Letters between the two brothers of Jane Beevor Roll in the 1880s mention a birthday of James Matthews the banker. Notes made many years ago by the mother of another descendant of the older John Bailey mention a man called Charles Jay also associated with James Matthews the banker. Another son of the older John Bailey was Charles Bailey, he also carried on business as a dyer in London.

Mary Ann Bailey married James Matthews of Grindlay’s Bank in 1830 in London. She was born (on the basis of census evidence) in Southampton about 1802. We are fortunate that a considerable amount of documentary evidence has survived in this branch of the family, although it does not explicitly set out the relationship between the persons with the surname Bailey that it mentions. James Matthews records that his wife, Mary Ann Bailey, was entitled to a half share of the rent for the Falcon public house and another house in Upper Thames Street in the City of London. When this pub was sold to a railway company, the proceeds were invested with the trustees being John Bailey (Junior) and Charles Jay. James Matthews owned a lease on a property in the City used as a dyeworks, rent on this was paid to him by a Mr C Bailey who is believed to be Charles Bailey the dyer, son of the elder John Bailey.

The above information is sufficient to suggest a close relationship between John Bailey the dyer and Mary Ann Bailey the wife of James Matthews. A further connection was found, as the mother of John Bailey (junior)’s wife was a cousin of James Matthews. This does not help our understanding of the Bailey family as it is probable that John Bailey (Junior) and his wife met through their visits to James Matthews. John Bailey was present as an employee and Jane Beevor Roll as a guest on the strength of the Matthews relationship; (Jane Beevor Roll had been orphaned and was living with James Matthews before her marriage).

The material most difficult to interpret is that from Andrew Man’s notes. Andrew is known to have employed a defunct but apparently reputable firm to do genealogical research. The original material is no longer available and we are forced to rely on a record of notes Andrew made about it. Some of the notes are not the sort of fact one would expect a professional researcher to find -“We know little about Mary Ann Bailey except that, according to notes belonging to Andrew Man, before she married James Matthews in 1830, she had been engaged to an Indian army Lieutenant who had no money. It was for this reason broken off, or as Andrew puts it because of the Lieutenant’s ‘inability to meet the financial implications’ of marrriage. It is fortunate that Mary Ann was later to marry a man who could more than meet these implications. Andrew’s notes on Mary Ann go on to say ‘her family lived in Shirley, Southampton’ and that ‘her marriage was kept secret for a year or more after it had taken place (she returned to her parents) and that she had a sister who married a Mr. Withers, a Quaker, and the sister became one too’ .”

So we have an explicit statement that Mary Ann Bailey had a sister: and although the relationship of Mary Ann with the older John Bailey is not set out, it seems likely to be close; if not siblings, then first cousins.

Withers is known to be a prominent Quaker name in the south of England and a search for a Withers:Bailey marriage threw up one promising possibility. The Bishop of Winchesters marriage licence allegations contained this entry:

Withers, James, of All Saints, Southampton, 22, b., & Eliza Bailey, of the s., 23, sp., at All Saints., 04 Dec 1835. Aff.

This marriage took place on the 5th Dec 1835 according to the IGI (the original parish register entry has not been seen yet). Eventually this marriage led me to discover Julie’s interest in Eliza Bailey.

Eliza Bailey married James Withers in 1835. The census suggests she was born in Southampton in about 1811. Their daughter born in 1837 was named Ellen Hayes Withers. Another daughter, Fanny Abigail Withers was born in the third quarter of 1847.

An early draft of the descendants of Henry and Elizabeth Bailey by Ian Wallace (one paged PDF) can be viewed HERE.

B) The family background.

One point likely to be material is the social status of the Bailey family in Southampton into which these three children fit. This matter would be easier to weigh up if more early wills had been traced.

The evidence from John Bailey’s London family suggests a modest middle class background. The dyeing businesses of both John (Senior) and Charles appear to have been profitable, without suggesting significant wealth. The family of John (Junior) seem to have been better off, his daughter married into a very wealthy business family (a partner in Derry & Toms); but this increase in affluence can be attributed to his work at Grindlay’s Bank. The wife of John (Junior), Jane Beevor Roll, came from a family with wealthy connections. A distant cousin was a baronet and that side of the family included large scale brewers. Her father had been a Freeman of the City, carrying on a substantial plumbing business. However, after her father died falling down stairs drunk, her family seem to have fallen on hard times – no doubt this is why James Matthews took her in. Some of her father’s siblings were wealthy (one was very wealthy), others lived modest lives, it is believed one died in a London Workhouse.

James Matthews became a wealthy man, but this was largely through his own efforts. His family had been Master Butchers running their own business. His wife Mary Ann Bailey was somehow in possession of a half interest in a substantial City public house and another house: this sounds as if it might have been an inheritance. The story about her earlier engagement to an Indian Army officer cannot be verified, but it is not the sort of story that feels like a total invention. If there is any truth in this story, it suggests the Bailey family in Southampton were certainly not working class. The evidence from Mary Ann suggests her family were well off.

At the moment nothing can be added to this story.

Fitting a family to the evidence.

If we are correct in thinkig that the most likely relationship of John to Mary Ann and Eliza is a brother, then we can specify the parents family with some precision:

Surname Bailey.

From Southampton, or nearby rural parishes (probably not much outside the current 21st century city boundary).

Daughters Mary Ann (born about 1802) and Eliza (born about 1811/2, her age is given as 23 on the marriage licence allegation in late 1835) and a son John born in about 1796.

The parents marriage might be expected to be in 1785 or earlier (in Southampton area most likely).

5. The mother’s forename was Elizabeth, she was born about 1770 in Southampton (aged 80, born Southampton on 1851 census).

Of course, if John was a cousin of Mary Ann and Eliza rather than a brother, points 3, 4 and 5 would not apply. For the moment it is more probable that the three are siblings.

i) A first attempt – Henry and Elizabeth.

There was a family in All Saints parish, Southampton that seems to fit some of the conditions.

Henry and Elizabeth appear to have the following children:-

Henry baptised 18 May 1800

Mary Ann baptised 10 Oct 1802

Eliza baptised 24 Mar 1805

Maria baptised 17 Jan 1808

Charlotte baptised 27 Aug 1809

(It is not certain whether Elizabeth baptised to a Henry and Elizabeth Bailey in St Michaels parish Southampton on 13 Jan 1796 is part of this family.)

This family includes Mary Ann, of the right age and Eliza, not of the right age, but no John. We do not know what happened to Henry and Elizabeth later, but their son Henry appears to have married a woman called Susan and been a labourer.

ii) A second attempt – Thomas and Elizabeth

There was another family, Thomas Bailey and his wife Elizabeth, in the parish of Holy Rood, Southampton. As far as location is concerned, All Saints and Holy Rood are equally plausible.

Thomas and Elizabeth appear to have the following children in Holy Rood parish between 1800 and 1812:-

Mary Ann baptised 4 Jan 1801

Charles baptised 26 June 1803

Henry baptised 25 Aug 1805

Frederick baptised 24 July 1808

Eliza baptised 7 April 1811

This family therefore gives us a Mary Ann of about the right age (maybe not quite as good a fit as the one in All Saints parish) and an Eliza with a much better fit of age. Between 1790 and 1800 there was only one Bailey baptism in Holy Rood parish, no mother’s name was recorded in the Parish register but the father’s name was Thomas:

John baptised 2 Oct 1796

This is an excellent fit with John Bailey (Senior) the dyer of Lambeth.

So on the face of it, this family seems to supply all the known siblings (as well as several not known).

The pattern of birth dates is a little suspicious, with a long gap between John and Mary Ann. It is not however completely implausible.

On the basis of these birth, we would expect to find a marriage between Thomas Bailey and a woman called Elizabeth from Southampton who was born in about 1770 or 1771 some time before 1796.

Using both the Hampshire Genealogical Society Index, the LDS index and various other sources only one suitable marriage in Southampton has been fond. This was on the 12th April 1792 at Southampton St Lawrence and St John between Thomas Bailey and Elizabeth Hayes. This would seem to neatly explain the middle name of Eliza Bailey and James Wither’s daughter Ellen Hayes Withers.

A baptism for an Elizabeth Hayes in Southampton in 1770 or very close, should be obtainable but so far none has materialized. Neither has the woman who became Elizabeth Hayes by marriage, then became widowed. and this is a major problem, although not fatal to the theory

The transcription of Hampshire baptisms available to us now extends to 1812. A reputable website  <> provides further coverage from 1813. This suggests only one other later baptism in Southampton Holy Rood to a Thomas and Elizabeth. This was the baptism on 29th December 1817* of Thomas son of Thomas and Elizabeth Bailey. Once again there is a long gap between children, this baptism is twenty one years after the baptism of John in 1796, there must initially be some doubt whether it is the same couple. The 1817 baptism also includes the additional information that the father was a postboy and lived in Bridge Place. This occupation has two meanings, neither of which suggest middle class prosperity (the word “boy” is part of the occupational description and implies nothing about his age).

*Some parts of the Holy Rood registers are now on the Mormon LDS index,

Using the LDS index and Knightroots the following Holy Rood parish burials have been found:

11795 John Bailey’s of Thomas

210/1/1818 Thomas Bailey 2 wks Bridge Place

(The infant baptised on 29/12/1817)

3/12/1821 Thomas Bailey 50 Bridge Place

(Presumably the husband of Elizabeth)

3/12/1821 Charles Bailey 19 Bridge Place

(Presumably the son baptised on 26/6/1813, buried same day as father)

There was also an Elizabeth Bailey buried in Holy Rood parish on the 26th May 1816; but as she is not on the transcription on Rootsweb her age is not yet known.

I.W. 25/12/2013