Harriet Emily JULIUS [1033]

  General Notes:

Julius Jottings No 2 April 1900
Harriet Emily, daughter of Henry Richard and Mary Ann Julius, born in Farnham, December 28, 1842. Choir mistress (with Mrs Brewin) of Wrecclesham Church. Married at Wrecclesham to Arthur William Parker, April 30, 1868. Has trained with Rowledge Choir since 1871, and taken the lead in most parochial agencies.

Harriet was a resourceful and hard working vicars wife. She organised the choir and played the harmonium in the church (later she became the organist) and appears to have been as energetic as her husband. She set up a branch of the Mothers' Union which had been created not many years before, not far from Rowledge, by Bishop Sumner's daughter-in-law. The Rev. Parker's wife might well have been involved in discussions giving birth to the movement, since her father was a part of the circle around the Bishop.
Mrs. Parker also encouraged church activity in Buck's Horn Oak, then a small hamlet, somewhat remote from Rowledge Church. Mothers' meetings were held there and a certain Captain and Mrs. Heathcote held services in a laundry there until a mission was built (in 1905) which became, in time, a church.
She also set up a Girls' Friendly Society, a Ramblers' Association, a provident club for providing clothing and coal in winter - all of which were administered from the parsonage. Games were organised for the children in the vicarage garden. In 1882, a local branch of the Church Missionary Society was set up.
Ref: Old Julius by Birch & Waight.

The Reverent and Mrs Parker and Their Servant.
At the County Court held at Aldershot on Wednesday, before his Honour Judge Lushington, Mrs Parker, wife of the Vicar of Rowledge, the Rev H W Parker, was sued by Elizabeth Meadow, a servant, for 16/4p the balance of a month's wages in lieu of notice. . . . .. Elizabeth Meadow received about L13 per annum . . . .. She was given a month's notice to leave no reason was given . . . . . A week later she was told the leave the house at once and given a weeks pay. She was suing for the balance 16/4d.
Mr Jackson for the defendant alleged the plaintiff's conduct was "light".
His honour: Is it worthwhile to go into the question of character for 16/4d I should be very sorry indeed to have to do so for that.
Mr Merry for Meadow: it is a question of principle, the only charge against this girl is of having 2 boys arms round her waist.
His Honour: it is a very little case, and a painful thing for a person's character to be tried for so small a sum.
Mr Merry: We want this girl's character cleared.
Then followed further evidence and cross-examination including.
Jackson: Plaintiff had been walking out with men and one night stayed out late and Mrs Parker had to get up and go down and let the girl in, for the whole household had retired to rest. There was the vicar of the parish, and he must
His Honour interrupting: Oh yes; all of us must keep order if the vicar does. (Laughter).
. . . . .
His Honour summing up, said servant cases were always difficult, and it required the Judge to put himself in a most equitable frame of mind to deal with them. There was always a great deal of feeling in the cases on both sides, and both parties always insisted on their extreme rights, and the present case was an example of the kind. The plaintiff and defendant insisted on their respective rights, and so the whole case was fought out for the trifling sum of 16/4p. The rule of law he always carried out was that neither master or mistress were entitled to dismiss summarily or eject from their house at once, anyone unless some very serious misconduct was proved. He could not allow to a Rector or Vicar any greater rights in law then he could do anyone else; but everybody must agree that the Vicar of a parish had the special duty imposed upon him, if not by law, at any rate by society and his profession, to be strict in the management of his household, and of course very careful indeed as to the behaviour of his female servants. He was sorry to say that for the trumpery sum of 16/4d, he had that day to try the great question of the sex and the behaviour of, and enquire into the character, of the plaintiff. It was repugnant to him to have to do so. It was a natural disposition of the sexes to be drawn together. He was sorry to say it was impossible for him to believe both Mrs Parker and the plaintiff. He must say that he believed Mrs Parker, and was sorry that the plaintiff had disgraced herself by swearing falsely; but the main question was whether Mrs Parker was right in summarily dismissing the plaintiff. He did not for a moment want to take an extremely prudish view of the case, and such a thing as persistent misconduct he did not recognise. If a servant in a place misbehaved herself, and was still retained in service, he must consider that all past offences were condoned. He had heard the evidence of Miss Parker and he must say it was unseemly conduct on the part of the girl. The plaintiff's conduct had been light: she had been light in the box that day, and he was entitled to take that into account in deciding the great question whether the conduct of the girl justified Mrs Parker in summarily dismissing her. He did not want to set up or require any extraordinary standard of virtue for plaintiff, or for any other servant, or hired female servant, but in the present case he thought the offence was aggravated by the warnings given to plaintiff after misbehaving herself; and, notwithstanding such warnings she, in spite of them, repeated the offence. In the box she had sworn falsely and deliberately on a number of points and her behaviour was highly disgraceful; and his conclusion was, looking at all the circumstances of the case, looking at the special warnings, the evidence of Miss Parker, which was not denied or palliated in any way, and also looking at plaintiff's behaviour in the box, he had to say expressly so, that Mrs Parker was within her legal right in summarily dismissing the girl, and therefore he gave judgement for the defendant. The next time he hoped Mrs Parker would, by not considering a few shillings avoid another case like this.
Ref: Farnham Herald August 12, 1899. (Roy Waight).

Parker Harriet Emily of Glenberrie 7 Court-road Tunbridge Wells widow died 13 January 1933 Probate London 4 May to Florence Ellen Parker and Constance Emily Parker spinsters.
Effects L7334 17s 1d.
National Probate Calendar

  Research Notes:

Parker family images courtesy of R Waight 2015

  Other Records

1. Census: England, 30 Mar 1851, Rectory Wrecclesham Farnham. Harriet is recorded as a daughter aged 8 a scholar at home born Farnham

2. Census: England, 3 Apr 1881, Rowledge Vicarage Farnham HAM. Harriet is recorded as a wife aged 38 born in Farnham Surrey

3. Census: England, 5 Apr 1891, Woodcroft Red Hill Reigate SRY. Harriet is described as a visitor aged 48 born Farnham

4. Census: England, 31 Mar 1901, Rowledge Vicarage HAM. Harriet is recorded as a wife aged 58 born Farnham.

5. Census: England, 2 Apr 1911, Rowledge Vicarage Farnham HAM. Harriet is recorded as a wife aged 68 she had been married 42 years bearing 6 children all alive she describes herself as a Parochial worker and was born Farnham Surrey

Harriet married Rev Arthur William PARKER [1049] [MRIN: 334], son of Henry John Neil PARKER [400] and Elizabeth STRIDE [401], on 30 Apr 1868 in Wrecclesham Church Farnham SRY. (Rev Arthur William PARKER [1049] was born on 24 Feb 1841 in Shirley HAM, baptised on 8 Sep 1841 in Shirley HAM and died on 18 Apr 1917 in Tunbridge Wells KEN.)