One thing leads to another ...
Checking anniversaries
My first decision
was to check my CLOSE website for special anniversaries (e.g.
100, 150, 200 years) falling on or near today’s date. Looking through that list, no names jumped
out at me as individuals with an interesting back-story that I could write
about. Basic births, marriages and
deaths are unlikely to engage a reader’s attention.
Leaping back from 1870 to 1861
My next thought
was to look through my collection of newspaper reports about CLOSEs for an
interesting story – nothing from 1820 or 1920 grabbed my attention, but there was
a report in the Liverpool
Mercury of 26 Jan 1870
which looked promising. Maybe I would write about that – particularly since it
concerned my first cousin 3 times removed, John CLOSE (1820-1901). On consulting his record in my database, I
discovered he had previously figured in another newspaper report just over 8
years previously, in the Preston Guardian of 6 November 1861.
The 1861 report
concerned an explosion at the Prince Albert pit at about 10am on 1st November
1861, in which ten men were killed and five others seriously injured, three of
whom later died of their injuries. The
paper reported that after the explosion,
“Mr Makinson, the manager, and Mr Close, the fireman, were descending the shaft and making the necessary preparations for examining the workings.“
It went on to say that these two were
at the head of the search party, and met a group of men, some unscathed, others
seriously injured, whom they helped to get out of the pit. I’m proud of this distant relative of mine
who was willing to put himself in danger.
His inquest evidence stated that he was in a different part of the mine
at the time of the explosion, but he immediately went towards the danger area where,
as the report states,
“chokedamp prevented the remainder (of the dead) from being reached till half-past three in the afternoon.”
 |
| from Shevington in Bloom |
Source: shdib.blogspot.com
Observant
readers will have noted that the Preston Guardian report merely refers
to a “Mr Close”. However, subsequent inquest
reports name him as John CLOSE, fireman, and a trawl through my CLOSE census
records produced only one, the above-mentioned John (1820-1901) who lived in
Shevington and was a miner around the time of the accident.
Further wanderings
Minor diversion
Here’s where I
made a couple of further detours. The report of the mining accident listed the names of those killed
or injured and where they had lived.
Several were from “The Barracks”, Shevington, which despite its military
ring was, as the press report helpfully explained, “a row of cottages within a
few score yards of the colliery.” That
address sounded familiar to me, and a quick search of my personal family tree
database discovered three different families in different locations, all named
“Barracks” – including the family of John CLOSE living in Barracks Lane,
Shevington in 1891. The family could have been
living there at the time of the 1861 accident as well – but the 1861 census
rather unhelpfully gives his address as “house in fields”.
 |
| Inquest report: Nottinghamshire Guardian, 12 Nov 1861 |
Major detour
The list of dead and injured in the Preston Guardian contained surnames
which also figured in my own family tree: ASHCROFT, BARON, RIDING. The report
named three from one family: James ASHCROFT, 47, and his two sons John, 15, and
Samuel, 13, “of the Barracks”, Shevington. Another victim was 12-year-old James
BARON “of the Barracks”. It was a chilling reminder that child labour
was still acceptable in coal mines at that time.
I wondered if this
might be the same James ASHCROFT who was the father of another James b 1845 who
married my 2nd cousin twice removed, Mary Ellen BARTON
(1841-1908). I hadn’t reviewed that
family of nine children for many a year, and my notes indicated that the
dubious source for the children was an email from one of their descendants sent
to me in 2002. Some of the birth years
were marked as approximate, so I embarked on a check of GRO births and of
census records in order to add some reliable evidence to this family. As a consequence I was able to remove two
children who didn’t belong to the family at all, add one additional child and
record exact dates of christening (parish records helpfully also gave dates of
birth), and add deaths of three of the eight children in infancy.
My conclusion was
that the James ASHCROFT whose son married my distant relative is not the one
who died in the Shevington explosion.
But my researches DID confirm one of my guiding principles: “Don’t
believe everything you read in the papers.”
I found that although the younger son was named Samuel in the first press
report, he is named Solomon in the inquest report and in every official record
I have found for him.
What about
James BARON, aged 12? The
above-mentioned John CLOSE’s daughter Jane (1845-1899) married a Richard BARON
in 1866; any relation, I wonder? And as many as four women named RIDING married
relatives of mine in the Shevington area. Were any of them related to William
RIDING, one of the victims who according to the inquest was the person
responsible for causing the explosion? No
time to check them out now, so I’ll have to put all these on the ‘to do’ list.
Back on track
Where was I? Oh
yes, I was supposed to be writing about my relative John CLOSE (1820-1901) who married
Hannah (aka Annie) HOLLAND in 1842, and was blessed with eleven children, ten
of whom survived into adulthood. And I
was marking the 150th anniversary of a remarkable event featured in a press
report of 26 January 1870. Maybe the
aftermath of the mine explosion had been too much for him to cope with. Whatever the reason, his children’s marriage
records from 1865 onwards and the 1871 census list him as a gamekeeper – as
does the piece in the Liverpool Mercury of 26 Jan 1870. Having painted my great-grandfathers’(1)
cousin John as something of a hero in 1861, he comes across as somewhat
foolhardy in this story of a what could have been another tragic accident:
 |
| Liverpool Mercury, 26 Jan 1870 |
Conclusion
So, what have I
achieved today? Well, I wrote about my
relative John CLOSE (1820-1901) , as intended – although the focus was on 1861 rather than 1870. I also discovered and corrected some errors in
my ASHCROFT family records and, as ever, added a few more items to my ‘to do’
list. So maybe today’s meanderings haven’t been entirely wasted!
(1) Postscript:
– No, the apostrophe isn’t
in the wrong place! John CLOSE was my
great-grandfathers’ cousin – he was a first cousin to two of my
great-grandfathers – but that’s another story.
Comments
Post a Comment