Secrets in print!

As you know if you've been reading this blog for a while, my initiation into family history was the discovery of an Australian death certificate for my husband's ancestor, Charles Gabriel Baker.

I've mentioned him and his sad story in one or two blog posts in the past, but recently I decided to gather all the information I'd collated and write an article about the long trail I followed to uncover the truth about what happened to Charles and his family.

Having completed the tale, I decided to submit it to Family Tree Magazine and I was delighted when they accepted it for publication.

So, I'm thrilled to announce that the article appears in May's issue of the magazine,

which is out now!

Here's a taster of the first page of my article, beautifully presented by the editing team across 4 pages.

If you'd like a copy of the magazine to hold in your hot, sticky hands, WH Smiths stores generally stock it, or you can download an e-version direct from Family Tree Magazine's own website.

Otherwise, you can learn something about Charles Baker's story from these previous posts:

1. About the amazing information on his death certificate in Death and its secrets
2. How he met his wife, Susan Sawyer, in Romance in the Records
3. Speculation as to why he went to Australia in Ancestors in the Spotlight

******************************************

So what's next...

Having concluded my 4 part story of The Shocking Truth about my wayward ancestor Thomas Shelley and his housekeepr, I've now got to decide what's the next family secret to uncover and share with you in future posts! Mmmmm..... let me see....

Assault and Cruelty - the victim

The final instalment in the sad story of Martha Cotterill and Bessie Shelley reveals more tragic events in Bessie's life and her shocking death.

(If you have arrived here unaware of the previous posts in this tale, you can read them at A family secret - the shocking truth part 1, part 2 and Assault and cruelty - the perpetrator.)

Of feeble intellect

©Courtesy of British Newspaper Archive

Several times in newspaper reports of the magistrates' hearing, Bessie was referred to as being of "weak" or "feeble intellect". No mention is made of this on any of the census entries on which Bessie appears, though the actual term "feeble-minded" wasn't introduced until the 1901 census, over 20 years after her death. Could it have been Martha's treatment, firstly by the ignominious way in which she took over the household and then the physical abuse she inflicted upon Bessie afterwards, which caused Bessie to have a mental breakdown? Or was Bessie already suffering with a mental disability before Martha arrived?

Whichever it was, it could explain why Bessie seemed unable to defend herself against Martha's bullying, more so given Thomas's obvious acquiescence at Martha's mistreatment of his wife. What options did a woman have at that time, in such a situation?

Family despair

In one of the newspaper reports, it was suggested that it was Bessie's wider family who brought the abusive situation to the attention of the authorities. What did they make of the outcome? They must have despaired when Martha, despite having been found guilty, then returned to live in the household. Perhaps they hoped that Martha's behaviour towards Bessie would improve following the court action, aware that the family might instigate further action if she did not mend her ways.

Under the circumstances, it is perhaps significant and unsurprising, that the birth of Bessie's daughter, Joannah, in 1860, would prove to be her last pregnancy, at the age of 34. So, what impact did the arrival and subsequent adoption a year later of Martha's daughter, Mary Jane (who we can now be fairly certain was fathered by Thomas), have on Bessie, I wonder?

Further tragedy

Maybe, with the arrival of other babies in the household (daughters Emma and Martha Ann had 3 illegitimate children of their own, all of whom spent at least some of their early years under the Shelleys's roof) the impact was softened in some way.

But even if Bessie was able to come to terms with her feelings on the matter, it was unlikely to prepare her for further sadness ahead.

In 1858, two years after the court case, Joannah died of scarlet fever, aged only 7 years old. Then two years later, in 1860, another daughter, Mary Ann Holland, died of consumption, aged 16 years.

A shocking death

When Martha died in 1866, I wonder if Bessie felt any sense of release. If she did, she didn't have long to savour it. Barely six months after Martha's death, in January 1867, Bessie also died . 

But what I found particularly distressing was when the certificate arrived and I read the cause of death. Above the name of the certifying doctor was one word - "burning".

Hunt for the truth

But what did that mean? For a moment, I thought maybe Martha's maltreatment had escalated and I'd stumbled across a murder! Until I remembered that Martha was already dead.

I set off on a mission to discover the truth. At one point I feared I'd never find out, as the crucial years of the most likely newspaper to have published a report, were missing. Shropshire Archives made a search amongst their files of another newspaper, copies of which aren't yet available online, but found no mention of events. Neither did they find any record of an inquest. 

But just as I thought I'd tried every possible source, I was prompted by findmypast.com to use up some credits before they expired. I made a final half-hearted browse in the British Newspaper database, in which I'd supposedly already searched, and up popped a short paragraph in Eddowes's, Shrewsbury & Salopian Journal, entitled Sad death from burning at Claverley.

© British Newspaper Archive

Bessie's death appears to have been a tragic accident. According to the newspaper, Thomas was at church with his son, leaving Bessie at home with her daughter and "two children". Again the newspaper mentions Bessie being of "weak intellect".

It's believed that Bessie had fallen into the kitchen fire. Ablaze, she rushed into the passageway but by the time help arrived and the flames were extinguished, it was too late. She suffered severe burns and died soon after, attended by the village nurse, Ellen Braggen, who also registered the death. 

No inquest

The coroner was informed, but apparently took the view that as the cause of death was not in question, there was no need for an inquest. While that might be true, I found it a little puzzling given the report said the deceased "must have fallen in the fire", suggesting that the exact circumstances had not been established.

Thomas & Bessie Shelley's grave
in Claverley churchyard

Bessie is buried in Claverley churchyard along with her husband, Thomas. The headstone would have been erected after Thomas's death in 1881, perhaps paid for out of Thomas's considerable estate of £1,451 2s 2d, which, according to Stephen Morley's Historical UK Inflation calculator amounts to over £158,000 in today's money. 

The wording gives no clue as to Bessie's traumatic life and death (her name is spelled "Bessey" on the headstone), only that she departed this life January 7th 1877. 

May she rest in peace.

Assault and Cruelty - the perpetrator

On 31st October 1856, Martha Cotterill was found guilty of assault and cruelty towards my 3x great-grandmother, Bessie Shelley, at a magistrates's hearing in Eccleshall, Staffordshire.

© British Newspaper Archives

Martha was fined £5 which would have resulted in imprisonment if Bessie's husband, Thomas Shelley, jointly accused but acquitted on lack of evidence, paid her fine.

(If you've not read the story so far, you might like to read the previous posts on the incident,  A family secret - The Shocking Truth,  Part 1 and Part 2.)

Who was Martha Cotterill?

So who was Martha Cotterill and how did she come into Bessie's life?

Martha joined the Shelley household around 1852 as a housekeeper. According to Thomas Davis, a servant in Shelley's employ in 1856, he was told by Thomas that Martha should be considered mistress of the house.

It seems certain that the relationship between Thomas Shelley and Martha was more than just employer and employee.  What is more difficult to establish, is whether this relationship began before Martha moved in or after.

Adbaston Church
(courtesy of geograph.org.uk)

A year before Martha's arrival, the 1851 census shows Thomas and Bessie (nee Holland) living in the small hamlet of Doley, near Adbaston, with their six children - Emma (my great-great gandmother) aged 9, William 7, Mary Ann 6, Martha 5, Eliza 3 and Joannah 1 - along with Thomas's mother, 54 year old Phoebe. Thomas is a farmer of 45 acres, with one live-in servant, John Lee.

A near neighbour

Less than 5 miles away, the same census lists Martha Cotrill (sic), unmarried, aged 25, living with her father, Thomas Cotrill and mother, Jane Cotrill.  Also listed are two grand-daughters - Mary, aged 1, born in Manchester and Elizabeth, aged 3 months, born in High Offley, Staffordshire. Are these girls both Martha's daughters?

Move on ten years and Elizabeth Cottrell, born in High Offley, appears on the 1861 census, now aged 11, but this time she is a boarder in - guess where - the Shelley household, alongside "housekeeper", Martha Cottrell.

A Manchester connection

I haven't found the other girl, Mary, but the eagle-eyed of you who read the previous posts may have noticed a connection. In the newspaper report of the assault on Bessie in 1856, it was stated that Martha had gone to Manchester some months previously to have a baby. The Mary mentioned in 1851 was also born in Manchester. What was Martha's link to Manchester? Perhaps she had family there.

Following her Manchester confinement, there's no evidence to suggest Martha returned with a child. Was it adopted? Or perhaps it didn't survive. In the December quarter of the 1855 birth index, an unnamed "male" child is listed, surname Cottrill, born in Manchester who subsequently died in the same quarter. Was this Martha's baby? And was Thomas Shelley the father?

The clue's in the name

One thing is certain, however. Nine year-old Mary J "C" Shelley, who appeared on the 1871 census as Thomas's daughter, was born Mary Jane Cotterill, on 12th July 1861, mother Martha Cotterill. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the name of the father is not recorded on the birth certificate.

Sadly, however, in April 1875, Mary Jane died aged only 13 and was buried in Claverley churchyard. Unfortunately, I can find no record of her death in the registration indexes under either Cotterill or Shelley, to obtain a certificate to discover the cause of death.

Bessie's tormentor dies

It would be one year after Mary Jane's death and 20 years after the court case that Bessie would be finally set free from the woman who had usurped her role as Thomas's wife. In 1876 Martha died from heart disease and congestion of the lungs. The death certificate recorded her age as 54, though according to previous records, she would actually have been only 50.

It would be comforting to think that Bessie would go on to enjoy many more years with her family, but sadly it was not to be. Bessie herself died six months later in the most horrendous circumstances.

Read the full story here, Assault and Cruelty - the victim.

A family secret - the shocking truth (Part 2)

©Courtesy of British Newspaper Archive

If you've read Part 1 of this distressing story you'll know that my 3x great-grandfather, Thomas Shelley, disgraced himself in 1856 by failing to protect his wife, Bessie, from the bullying and cruelty at the hands of their housekeeper, Martha Cotterill.

Martha Cotterill was found guilty as charged and fined £5, only avoiding a spell in the "house of correction" because Thomas paid her fine.

You would think that given the community outrage and the sheer embarrassment of being hauled up in front of the magistrates court, Thomas would have seen the error of his ways and dismissed Martha from his household forthwith.

But not a bit of it. Martha appears on both the 1861 and 1871 census still living with the Shelley family, no doubt because (as the evidence I've uncovered appears to confirm) Martha was more than a mere servant. As for poor Bessie, she was yet to suffer further trauma.

The immediate aftermath

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Firstly, there was the immediate aftermath of the court case.

Whether as a result of his clients' humiliation or through his own professional loss of face, the solicitor who'd represented Thomas and Martha wrote to the Staffordshire Advertiser, threatening to sue the journalist who'd written the report of the case for the newspaper, on the grounds it was a libellous misrepresentation of the facts.

The solicitor in question, Mr B. H. Smallwood, of Newport, Shropshire, alleged that the report was "grossly inaccurate" and that it contained serious omissions. The newspaper disputed this but Smallwood persisted in hounding the paper with letters of complaint.

Morally guilty

On 6th December 1856, the Staffordshire Advertiser decided to "go public" and published all the
correspondence between itself and Smallwood, followed by the newspaper's counter to the objections Smallwood had raised. It defended the so-called "omissions" on the grounds that including anything further would only have strengthened the case for the prosecution.

However, the editor did make the point that the magistrate who'd delivered the decision had said that, in the opinion of the bench, Thomas Shelley was morally guilty of participating in the offence and it was only because they had no legal proof of him having actually assaulted his wife, that they'd not convicted him as well as Martha Cotterill.

But Smallwood (clearly getting up a head of steam by now!) continued with his grievance.

Lost patience

Finally, on 20th December, the newspaper lost patience. It published a long ranting letter from Smallwood, dated 11th December, in which he nit-picked his way through both their comments in their own defence and on items of evidence presented at the hearing. He challenged the court on allowing Bessie to be called to give evidence, given the reporter had described her as having "rather feeble intellect". (If she was being bullied by Martha Cotterill to the extent alleged, I'm sure her state of mind could be explained by her terror at any repercussions she might suffer.) He also dismissed the reliability of one witness because he was a convicted felon (for poaching, apparently) and complained that the evidence of Bessie's daughter, Emma (my 2x great-grandmother) aged 15, stating her mother had "never complained" to her about Cotterill "ill-using" her, had been deliberately omitted from the newspaper report.

© courtesy of British Newspaper Archive

The newspaper followed this with an editorial, describing Smallwood's letter as being unreasonable in length and unjustifiable in manner. The editor also declared that he was no longer prepared to sacrifice any further column space on the subject. He admitted only to their original report being necessarily curtailed (as in, being a summary, as usual in such cases, rather than ad verbatim) but reiterating that any omissions were "quite as much against, as in favour of the defendants", despite Mr Smallwood "with all the cleverness of a shrewd member of his profession" endeavouring "to show the contrary."

Reading the detail, it's clear that Smallwood, as well as citing legal 'technicalities' (he states, for example that information presented was outside the allowed 6 month period from when the offence was committed), is peeved that a) his arguments presented at the hearing were disregarded by the magistrates, b) they over-ruled his legal objections and c) his closing speech was not published in the press. Perhaps he saw himself as a great orator with the skill to persuade all to his way of thinking, and that having presented himself as such to his clients and then promptly failing to deliver, he was desperate to redeem himself by calling "foul"!

Move away

I should imagine that life was somewhat uncomfortable for Thomas following the hearing and when Sutton Mill, Claverley, became vacant soon afterwards, in January 1857, he decided to move his family out of Shebdon and away from prying eyes (or possibly worse).

© courtesy of British Newspaper Archive

But sadly, as I mention above, Bessie was not able to put the past behind her and start afresh. Not only would Martha Cotterill move with them, remaining in the household for many years to come, but also life had yet further misery to inflict on poor Bessie.


To follow  - The truth about Martha and What became of Bessie. 

***********************************

A family secret - the shocking truth (Part 1)

The secrets revealed during our family history research are often fascinating, sometimes surprising and occasionally tragic. However what I stumbled upon while browsing the British Newspaper Archive recently can only be described as shocking.

We tend to regard our ancestors with a degree of benevolence, even those we discover on the criminal lists, we might try and justify their actions, that they stole the loaf of bread to feed their hungry family, for instance. But I'm not about to make any excuses for the behaviour of my 3x Great-grandfather Thomas Shelley!

The 1851 census finds Thomas living with his wife, Bessey (nee Holland) and their six children - Emma, my great-great grandmother, aged 9, William 7, Mary Ann 6, Martha 5, Eliza 3 and Joannah 1 - along with Thomas's mother, 54 year old Phoebe in the small hamlet of Doley, Adbaston, Staffordshire. Thomas is listed as a farmer with 45 acres and has one live-in servant, John Lee.

Dirty Linen

But 5 years later would see the family's dirty linen washed in public as Thomas Shelley, then living in Shebdon, was brought before magistrates at a

The Royal Oak , Eccleshall, where magistrates sat
(geograph.org.uk © David Weston)

hearing held in The Royal Oak, Eccleshall, on 31st October 1856, accused of "Cruelty and Assault" to his wife Elizabeth Shelley,  along with co-defendant, Martha Cotterill, his housekeeper.

The details of the case were reported in weekly newspaper The Staffordshire Advertiser on 8th November 1856 (and at least two other local papers) under the heading, UNNATURAL AND CRUEL TREATMENT.

A Younger Woman

According to the evidence put before the magistrates, Martha Cotterill had been engaged as a housekeeper about 4 years previously. Ten years younger than Bessey, and in her early thirties, it seems that Thomas became smitten with the younger woman.

Whether he'd engaged her and then fallen for her charms afterwards, or whether he'd known her beforehand, is hard to know for sure, though events might suggest the latter. It transpires that not only did Martha Cotterill move in assuming the role of mistress of the house, rather than servant, but she subjected Mrs Shelley to "the most disgusting treatment and on one occasion Cotterill had struck her on the head with a knife, causing the blood to flow profusely."

Further accusations included kicking, thrusting a mop soaked with horse manure into Mrs Shelley's face, threatening her with a stick, pulling her into the house by her hair, pushing excrement from a chamber pot into her mouth and "inflicting severe pain on some of the most sensitive parts of the body with a bunch of nettles."

Report of trial in Birmingham Gazette
(courtesy of British Newspaper Archive)

Witnesses

A former servant at the farm, James Turner, corroborated Mrs Shelley's statement, saying he had brought the cruelty to the attention of Mr Shelley who had merely laughed and told him if he didn't like it, he could leave. Another servant, Thomas Davis, had heard Cotterill threaten to "knock the complainant's brains out" and that he'd seen Mrs Shelley locked up several times and was never allowed to eat her meals with the family. He also said that Mr Shelley had told him that Cotterill was mistress of the house.

The case, it seems, had so appalled the local community that on the day of the hearing, both defendants had been followed up and down the street by an angry crowd of between 200 and 300 people, shouting and pelting them with rubbish.

After the evidence had been given, the court was cleared for the magistrates to consider their decision. They declared that no case of assault had been proved against Thomas Shelley but that Martha Cotterill was guilty of common assault and fined £5.

Angry Crowd

The waiting crowd were outraged at the verdict, considering it to be a far too lenient. I suspect they were even more incensed when Thomas paid Cotterill's fine to prevent her being sent to the house of correction. It's probably not surprising therefore, that the newspaper reported the crowd had "followed the defendants two miles out of the town, sainting them with no very complimentary epithets." I'll bet they did! One newspaper noted that the defendants had had to be escorted back to Shebdon by a "strong body of police."

No Remorse

It would be nice to report that following such a public condemnation of his behaviour, Thomas Shelley was shamed into treating his wife with a little more respect. But sadly, the evidence suggests otherwise. While I've uncovered no further clashes with the law (on this particular matter, anyway - the other is a different story altogether), it's obvious from what follows that Thomas, no doubt blinded by his infatuation for his housekeeper, considered he'd been treated unjustly.

And as for Martha Cotterill... you'll have read Part 2 to find out more.

Panto time!

As I have mentioned before in a previous post (see Strictly Music Hall) my grandmother, Winifred Griffiths was a professional singer. Her talent as a soprano was spotted at a young age and she toured with the Carl Rosa Opera Company.

But after a few years, she left opera behind to follow a different career path, performing in variety acts at repertory theatres all over the country, including pantomimes.

Here she is as the Fairy Queen, both panto and date unknown.










She appears in the photograph below in a production of Babes in the Wood, performed at the Hippodrome in Birkenhead in 1927. (I have another newspaper cutting of an almost identical curtain-call scene from the same year, but this time in Belfast.)

Babes in the Wood, Birkenhead Hippodrome, 1927

But I could do with your help here. The column accompanying the photograph reads, "Another gifted singer is Miss Winifred Griffiths, who makes a demure Maid Marion."  Maid Marion? Call me a traditionalist, but there looks to be way too many flashy head-dresses and posh frocks amongst the outfits for her to be dressed in a modest shift and wimple, as one might expect, so I have no idea which one is her! Any suggestions as to a likely Maid Marion?

Having recently subscribed to The British Newspaper Archive I've been on the search for mentions of Wyn (as she was generally known) in the press so I was delighted to find a review of her performance playing the squire's daughter in Little Red Riding Hood at The Hippodrome, Preston in 1931., "a decided asset to the musical side".

In a report in the entertainment industry's The Era, during the same panto season, she's described as "lovable and sweet".

I also found mention of my grandfather, Herbert Henry Coules Colley, in his guise as "theatrical artiste" under his stage name, Ken Barton. (I wonder whether she called him Bert or Ken?)

Ken's speciality was comedy and regularly played the part of the pantomime dame.

In a clipping my gran had cut out of the Dorset Echo, in 1931, his appearance in Little Red Riding Hood in Weymouth earned the comment, "...no one in the company could have been better chosen to impersonate Granny Matilda than Ken Barton, whose clever make-up deceived a good many."

But, as usual, I'm left with a mystery. According to The Sunderland Echo and Shipping Gazette, Wyn is quoted as saying that she had once been the principle soprano with another opera company in additional to Carl Rosa, alleging that she played in The Bohemian Girl with the O'Mara Company, which I understand was a well-known Irish Opera Company. (Ironically they were running an advertisement in the very paper in which I read Wyn's interview.)

Courtesy of British Newspaper Archives

Her stay at Carl Rosa was legendary in the family but I don't remember her or anyone ever mentioning the O'Mara company before. Why would that be?

Either I've just discovered something new about my grandmother's career or... it's a case of not believing everything you read in the papers!

So, as ever, there's more research to do to establish the true facts...





Finally, a big thanks to all of you who have dropped in on my blog during the year and added your comments. I look forward to welcoming you again in 2016. Until then...

Have a very  

Merry Christmas 

and

 Happy New Year. 

Mystery and scandal

I was intrigued a few months ago when I came across the probate record of Thomas Banner Viner,
the brother of my husband's great-grandmother, who died in 1941 aged 67. Thomas, it seemed, had left all his worldly goods to a spinster called May (surname omitted to protect the innocent!), who was 20 years his junior.

The mystery deepened when I realised his wife Alice was still very much alive, as were his two sons, Harold and Cecil, and his three daughters, Gladys, Doris and Mabel. So was this a case of cherchez la femme? 

St Mary Abbot's Hospital

His death certificate revealed that he'd died in St Mary Abbots Hospital on 19th November 1941, of stomach cancer and "senility."






His address is recorded as 39a Paddington Street, Marylebone, the same address as the informant, who was none other than his lady friend May. The entry beside her name reads, causing the body to be buried. 

Opinions on the meaning of this phrase vary but the usual interpretation is that the deceased has no close family members to arrange the funeral. But as we know, Thomas did have family, which suggests that at the time of his death they were estranged.

I sent for a copy of Thomas's will. It was dated the year before his death and I was puzzled to read the opening paragraph which said, "This is the last Will of Mr Thomas Banner Viner, the husband of Alice Viner..."  It seems bizarre to highlight that he was married to Alice and then promptly declare everything is to go to May! Was he trying to make a point? Was it Alice who had rejected him? I can't quite decipher the actual wording but there's no question of his intentions. Dear Alice doesn't get a look-in.

Doris's marriage certificate showing Thomas's signature
(courtesy of Surrey History Centre)

Browsing through the records of his family, it appears that there was no rift at the time of his
daughter Doris's marriage to Thomas Newnham, in 1934, as the register clearly shows Thomas's signature.

Thomas had strong ties with Marylebone, where he'd apparently lived with May, as he'd been baptised in St Mary's church in 1874. He'd married Alice at St Luke's church and all his children had been born in Paddington.

In later years, however, he'd moved away from this area of London, appearing on the electoral register as living in Harrow along with Alice, as late as 1938. So whatever happened between them must have occurred in those two years between 1938 and writing his will in 1940.

Whether of any relevance or not, it's interesting to note that his elder son, Cecil, emigrated to Australia in January of 1941.

Not a photo of May but
an example of a fox fur.
(I recall my Gran having one.)

Not one to resist a good mystery, I was keen to know more, so I contacted May's family through Ancestry and asked if they knew of any link between her and Thomas Viner.

I had a friendly email from one of her descendants in New Zealand who promised to ask his 90 year old cousin, the only member of the family still living who he thought might remember May well.

And remember her she did, recalling that May was a kind and generous lady who never forgot Christmas and birthdays. My contact's own vague recollections were also confirmed - that May was a large lady who wore fox furs over her shoulders, the sort with a snap-clasp in the fox's mouth which closed over the tail (see photo left of something similar)!

As for her relationship with Thomas Viner, the old lady said that May had "man-friends with whom she lived at different times" and this was frowned upon by certain members of in the family, some even refusing to allow her in the house!

It was known that May had received an inheritance from one of her men-friends and was thought to have been the "other woman" in the case. She used the money to buy herself a house in Wembley where she lived with another gentleman, her final "man-friend" called Basil. He wasn't liked by the family and it seems they might have had a point, as after May died he cleared out the house and promptly disappeared. Perhaps he already knew that May had not remembered him in her will but had left her estate to her brother.

As for why Thomas turned to May for his home comforts, I guess we'll never know, but it's an intriguing story nonetheless and it's been brilliant being able to find out as much as I have.

And it's certainly inspired my mystery writer's brain - I wouldn't be at all surprised if something of a similar nature finds its way into the plot of Esme's next story (wink, wink)!