Dr. Stephen Geary Wilkes or Wilks, who was born in 1782 in Finsbury, London, the son of a non-conformist clergyman, qualified as a doctor in Glasgow in 1808. He was first married to Sarah Blundell but left her and their children. He then bigamously married Elizabeth Seymour, by whom he had another two children, and in 1818, after being generously patronised by Mr. Frances, eloped with the infatuated Mrs. Frances.
The Observer’s report on the scandal includes a full description of Wilkes, who is admitted to be rather attractive, although this is somewhat at odds with the description circulated by Mr. Frances, the aggrieved husband: 5 feet 6 inches tall, pock-marked, greying and rather bald on top. According to Mr Frances, he spoke with a lisp and walked with a strut. Crucially, however, he had a “fluency in speaking.”
There are some lovely descriptions, vivid in their simplicity, of the clothes Mrs. Frances packed for her doomed adventure with the doctor.
SEDUCTION & ELOPEMENT EXTRAORDINARY
Of all the characters who come within the description of adulterers, seducers, and libertines, we think the man, whose conduct is exposed in the following account, ranks most pre-eminent; and as he has yet contrived to evade those laws which he has violated with impunity, and therefore that punishment he so deservedly merits, we think that we do no more than our duty in publishing the following narrative:–
The hero of this story is a person calling himself Dr. Wilkes; at other times, Mr. Stephen Geary Wilkes; also, Captain Bayfield, and Mr. Seymour, and several other titles. This gentleman is a doctor of medicine, and practised with success in a market town [Bury St Edmunds] in the —— of England, but his dishonourable conduct obliged him to leave the place. He deserted his wife (with whom he had a large fortune, which he had expended) and two children, to the casual care of his former friends and acquaintances. He soon got an appointment as surgeon in the army, and went abroad; on his return he gained the affections of a highly respectable young lady, and though his former wife, by whom he had a family, was living, he actually married her, and has two children by her, living with their mother at ———, a few miles from London. She has supported him for a considerable period, being an accomplished woman, by her talent and industry in conducting a young ladies’ school. Mr. W. at length deserted her also & only visited her when he wanted a supply of cash. Since the desertion of his second wife, he has rendered a family miserable, by seducing one of the daughters from the paths of virtue, which has nearly broken the heart of her aged mother, and nothing but the deepest affliction pervades the whole family. He was compelled to desert the young lady because his finances were reduced to a few shillings, with which he came to London, at a period when a celebrated gentleman was calling the attention of society to his theories and plans for re-modelling the lower classes of society. His situation was then distressing in the extreme; he applies to a person who had often been his friend for advice and assistance. He was recommended to practice in London, and was promised the support of several persons, to whom he was introduced.–
He went in company with his friend to a meeting held in the city of London, at which place he was introduced to the above celebrated Philanthropist alluded to; he professed to him his admiration of his system for bettering the condition of the lower orders of society. He was invited by the gentleman, whose conduct he so much praised, to dine with him, and from that time he so ingratiated himself into the good opinion of this friend to the poor, that he recommended him to many of his acquaintance and friends in town, and being a man possessing considerable skill he would soon have had an extensive practice. By the recommendation of his new patron, he was introduced to a highly respectable family, the head of which holds a situation of considerable importance and profit under Government. Upon his patron’s stating the confined circumstances of the doctor to his family, he received a general invitation to the table, and he used all the skill which he possessed (which is no mean portion) to obtain the good opinion of its inmates; and by his openness and apparently amiable qualities, his presence was considered as necessary almost to the happiness of the family. It happened about this time that the lady of the house, the wife of his friend, was taken ill. The Doctor was desired to attend her, and that he might pay more attention to the lady, the husband fitted up an apartment in his house for the Doctor to sleep in. The Doctor was now quite at home, his attention to his patient was unremitting, and his visits to her, which were frequently alone, were of considerable length. And when the lady became convalescent the doctor was praised for his skilfulness. The lady is under thirty years of age, and possesses a handsome person. The doctor, who is about forty years of age, is a very good-looking man; he passed for a widower, and after the complete restoration of the health of his patient, he was requested to continue in his friend’s house until he had prepared a suitable place where he could pursue his profession. During the time that this Doctor Wilkes was attending the wife of his friend in a professional capacity – while he was professing to restore her to bodily health, he took the dishonourable advantage which an honourable profession (he had so much disgraced) gave him to corrupt her mind, and alienate her affections. After the lady’s recovery her mind appeared to every one (but that of an affectionate husband, who was blinded by excessive love for her) to have undergone a change most extraordinary. Her conduct to her husband became cold & at times very disrespectful, & towards every other member of the family, she acted quite unbecoming a mother of several children. Her levity exceeded what even a girl of 16 years of age would have thought unpardonable. Her language, which before was becoming a lady of fortune, and the wife of so excellent a husband as Mr. F[rances] was changed to that commonly used by women whose minds have been debauched, and who have followed a lengthened course of vice and profligacy. Her relations remonstrated with her upon such conduct, and particularly upon the very marked attention she paid to the doctor, which although they had no idea at the time of any criminal intercourse between them, yet they took the liberty of speaking freely to her upon the subject, fearing that if she continued to deport herself towards her husband and family as she was then doing, some very sad consequences might ensue. The advice was thrown away, her mind had been contaminated by the pestiferous breath of a villain, and she was unhappy in the company of those who were formerly her sole delight. She now appeared to have weaned her affections entirely from her husband, and was never happy but in the company of the “Dear Doctor.” Her brother-in-law, Mr. B., who was the only one of her friends that dared to speak in direct terms to this once haughty, but now miserable woman, upon the criminality of her conduct, gave her to understand, that he had waited to see a change in her behaviour towards the doctor; that he had expected that the indirect warnings of her friends would have been sufficient to have brought her back to the honourable path she had formerly pursued; but he found that she treated her husband with contempt, & her children with not merely neglect, but cruelty. He was satisfied in his mind how such a change had been effected. He told her that he should speak his mind freely to her husband, and unless he would calmly suffer himself to be dishonoured in his own house by the doctor, he would, without ceremony, break his neck out of it. She laughed at the good advice of a valuable friend and relation and appeared to be perfectly infatuated by passion for the wretch who had worked her ruin. Her brother-in-law informed her husband of his suspicions, and advised him to send her to the country house at Tonbridge Wells. The husband still could not believe that his wife, the mother of his beautiful children, was criminal. He, however, ordered the Doctor to leave his house. His wife opposed such a measure most strenuously: she said that such a step was precipitate, unnecessary, very ungentlemanlike, and inhospitable. On the following day the husband took her to Tonbridge Wells, and there she declared that she could not live; she detested the place, and prevailed upon her husband, after residing there two days, to return to London. During the time that this Doctor, this assassin of domestic happiness, was being treated very hospitably at the mansion of Mr. F. he as it were held the purse of his friend, and had sums from him to a very considerable amount, which he used as a means to effect his purposes, in carrying off his wife. The very day after the lady returned with her husband from Tonbridge Wells to London, she packed up all her valuables (during the absence from her husband from home) that were portable, in two trunks and two parcels, and had them conveyed to the Doctor, who was watching for her in a neighbourhood of her husband’s house with a hackney coach: they both got into the coach, and drove off, abandoning a truly affectionate husband and her two fine interesting children; leaving wealth and happiness, for poverty, misery, and the precarious protection of her seducer. The following circular was sent to the tradesmen of Mr. F, and also to the different Post-Masters in England, for the purpose of discovering the retreat of the fugitives, and knowing that it is in every respect authentic, we annex it here:
‘A person calling himself Dr. Wilkes, and Stephen Geary Wilkes, but who also passes by the name of Seymour, and Captain Bayfield, was, about six weeks since, taken out of a situation of great pecuniary distress, placed in an employment of his own choice, securing to him sufficient temporary provision, and the means of future advantage, from the application of his industry; and, above all, received into the house of his benefactor as an inmate. Here he availed himself of his professional attendance on the wife of his friend, during a fever, to corrupt her mind and alienate her affections. His villainous intentions were no sooner discovered than he was promptly dismissed the house, and every precaution taken to prevent a catastrophe, which, however, the malignancy of the one party and the weakness of the other,, have conspired to produce, and by which a husband has been robbed of his wife, and his children of a mother. It is superfluous to add, that the chief object of this detestable assassin of domestic happiness, was the pillage of the purse of his friend, which afforded him the means even to carry his secondary purpose into effect. This Dr. Wilkes had taken a lodging in Foley-street, and from thence went in a hackney coach with the lady, between 7 and 8 o’clock on Thursday evening, said “he should be too late for the eight-o’clock coach,” but was set down at the top of Dean-street, Oxford-street, with a trunk and two parcels, and may have proceeded to the Continent.
‘No intelligence whatever has been heard of the lady, and all enquiry after Wilkes (or Seymour) has proved fruitless. It is supposed that he has debarred her of all communication with her friends, who are in the greatest anxiety on her account.
‘LADY.— Tall and young; had on a large straw bonnet with straw-coloured ribbons, or a seal-skin hat, with a black veil; dark purple Welch whittle shawl, with a deep fringe; a black silk petticoat, with a flounce of red satin plaited; and leather half-boots. Was looking very ill, and low in spirits.
‘S. G. Wilkes.— Is about 37 years of age, 5 feet 6 inches high, (lady near half a head taller,) dark complexion, pock-marked, dark grey eyes, hair black, in parts turning grey, somewhat bald on the crown of his head; probably had on a military great coat, trimmed with silk lace; wears rather a small hat, & hair bushy behind; lisps a little in his speech, a strut in his gait, & fluency in speaking.”
‘The lady took with her the following clothes:— white and purple twilled silk pelisse, with purple satin, plaited round with silk tassels; a plumb-coloured velvet spencer, tassels, trimmed with satin; a silk scarf, chintz pattern; a square lace shawl; a lilac crape gown, lilac narrow ribband, with trimming and bows; a pink silk gown, trimmed with white ribband; a salmon-coloured twilled silk gown; and a pair of fawn-coloured boots.
‘Dr. Wilkes, it is since discovered practised in Bury St. Edmund’s, three years; left it in great discredit in 1811; then lived at Brentford; married a second wife, by whom he had two children; his first wife also being alive, with two children. He shortly deserted his second wife, after reducing her to extreme distress. At Brentford he enlisted in the Westminster militia, calling himself George Frederick Seymour; was rejected and discharged in 1813m on account of a scar of a considerable ulcer on his left leg; and has since led a most dishonest and profligate life, everywhere leaving the victims of his crimes to bewail their knowledge of him and execrate his perfidy.’
The above instances of the practices of Wilkes are only a few of the numerous villainies which he has committed. The last wife he married was the daughter of —B., Esq. of Holborn-hill and niece to Dr. H. an eminent accoucher. This lady he treated with the greatest brutality prior to his deserting her.
Ever since Mrs. F. eloped with the Doctor, every effort has been used by her friends to discover her retreat. Two days ago, Mr. B. her brother-in-law, was walking near St. James’s Park, and saw the Doctor and Mrs. F. walking together. He gave a pound note to a soldier in the Guards to watch them, and follow them until he got a constable. He and the soldier followed them until they arrived at their lodgings, a miserable apartment at a chandler’s shop, in a little street in Southwark. Mr. B produced a constable, and accosted the Doctor, in whose bosom he saw a valuable brooch (a cameo), upon which was a profile of the injured husband, and underneath a crystal stone, on the same brooch, was the letter F: the initial of her husband’s surname. Mr. B immediately charged the Doctor with stealing the brooch, and the officer conveyed him to Union Hall, where he was examined in the evening before the magistrate. The doctor was dressed fashionably, in a military great coat, and when charged with felony, he laughed at his accusers: he declared that the lady gave him the brooch. The unfortunate woman was in the outer office during the examination, calling upon her “Dear Doctor.” She said “she would go with him. They should not take her from him. She would go to prison with him.” The officers and one of her friends prevented her from intruding herself into the Magistrates’ room, because her husband did not wish to be in her company, and was desirous of avoiding the sight of her, as though she had injured him and his children, yet he could not entirely forget her whom he had once so dearly loved.
The Magistrate asked Mr. F. if he wished his wife to be called in and examined on oath, whether she gave the Doctor the brooch or not. Mr. F. said, that if the Magistrate would order the brooch to be restored to him he would withdraw the charge. The Magistrate immediately caused the brooch to be delivered to him, and the Doctor was discharged, and appeared very eager to get out of the office. On his way out he was arrested by Mr Jarvis, the Sheriff’s officer, and taken to a lock-up-house. The Doctor declared that it was a false arrest, and that a conspiracy was formed between Mr. Jarvis and Mr. B. to deprive him of his liberty, and would not be satisfied to the contrary until Mr. Jarvis proved to him by documents that he had had the writ in his possession for many months, but had been unable to meet with him. The Doctor and the lady had not a shilling left, and they had pledged all the property which she took away from her husband. When Mrs. F. was informed that the Doctor was arrested for debt she went into an hysteric fit.
The Doctor is now confined in Horsemonger-lane gaol: and although this most unfortunate woman was offered by a friend a respectable asylum, she was so infatuated that she declined the offer, and actually visits the author of her ruin in prison. She has no money, nor can have any until her divided (of property she possesses in her own right by settlement) is due.
And when this friend so earnestly requested her to withdraw from her seducer, she said, “I will live no where but with the Doctor;” and when her friend gave her a small sum of money, she exclaimed, “This will purchase the Doctor a good dinner!”
Since the elopement, the doctor and herself have been getting in debt in the name of Mr. F., her husband, with many of his tradesmen, and have been supported by those means. The injured husband has commenced proceedings for divorce, and the lady has been served with a citation from Doctors’ Commons.
NOTES
In 1821 Stephen Geary Wilkes was convicted of larceny at Surrey Quarter Sessions and sentenced to seven years’ transportation, travelling on the Adamant. In Australia he renewed his medical career. His skills were extremely useful to the authorities who in 1821, for instance, transferred him from Newcastle to Wellington Valley to help deal with an outbreak of sickness.
All did not go smoothly in Australia, however, and he was jailed in 1823 in Sydney for being absent without leave from his hospital post.
He popped up again on 2 September 1823 giving evidence at an inquest at Bathurst Plains into the drowning death of Peter Bray.
The last trace I can find is from 1824, when he gave evidence at a murder trial describing the bodies of men killed by Aborigines. The court report described him as “acting surgeon at Bathurst.”
I can find nothing after this date.
Charles Craske says
I knew quite a bit about the good Doctor but had no idea that he was transported to Australia. Through my mother My 5 x great grandfather was the Rev Matthew Wilks, SGW would have either been one of his son’s or a grandson. There was another “interesting” Wilks, John the younger who was a solicitor but who was called Bubble Wilks, his father was John, son of Rev M W. Bubble embraced fully the commercial benefits of the newly created Joint Stock company, also shortly M.P for Sudbury in Suffolk. I wonder what happened to Mrs France’s? Just checked, SGW was a son of Rev M.W and so a brother of my direct ancestor, Rowland. Thanks for posting this information, Charles Craske
Cameron Bryant says
Hello! I stumbled upon this story and your comment. I am a descendant of this disreputable Stephen Geary Wilks through a child of his first marriage. I’d love to hear from you if you have anymore information about him.