One thing leads to another ...


           
 I’m sure I’m not the only family history researcher who finds it difficult to keep focused on one thing at a time. As a “one-namer” I often resolve at the start of a session to note all the occurrences of the CLOSE surname or variants in a particular record set, but more often than not, I find that something of interest prompts me to wander away from the intended pathway.  Here’s just one example of today’s wanderings whilst searching for a suitable subject for my next blog.

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

Popular posts from this blog

An enterprising Sunderland shipwright - Robert CLOSE 1825-1894.

Image
Who was he? There are over 300 people named Robert CLOSE in my current one-name study database.   Little has been discovered about many of them apart from their family relationships and census records.   However, there are some for whom an interesting back-story has emerged, and one of these is the Robert CLOSE born in Bishopwearmouth, Sunderland, County Durham, England, in 1825.   He was christened on 24 February 1825 in Bishopwearmouth [1] , the son of Jobling CLOSE and his wife Rachel, formerly HODGE. On 25 May 1845, Robert was married in Monkwearmouth to Mary STUDHOLME [2] , whose family had moved to the area from Cumberland.   They appear on the 1851 census [3] together with their first child Mary (born 1847) [4] at 8 Walworth Street, Bishopwearmouth, where Robert is listed as a shipwright. Another five children were born to the family between 1850 and 1857, of which four died in infancy. The second surviving daughter was Elizabeth Ann, born 1855 [5...
Read more
Image
Here's a brief report on how far this CLOSE one-name study has progressed so far.  England & Wales data collection so far includes complete census data from 1841, 1851, 1871, 1891, 1901 and 1911, and BMDs 1837-1950.  I also have almost 3,000 England & Wales christenings, over 700 pre-1837  marriages and around 300 burials in my database. When it comes to the rest of the world, my collection looks much more sparse, compared to the amount of information out there.  Co-researchers in other parts of the world - particularly the USA, Australia and New Zealand - are urgently needed!  Let's crack this together! It's my intention to post here not just statistical information, but some stories about notable CLOSEs from various locations and historical periods. Pictured here is James CLOSE (1900-1971) of Horwich, Lancashire. If there's someone you think deserves a mention, then do let me know! Have a look at my Guild of One-Name Studies p...
Read more

Thomas Cameron Close of Middlesbrough

No hiding place in 1876 - even in Austr alia! Thomas Cameron Close was the Borough Accountant for Middlesbrough Borough Council during the 1860s and early 1870s. He was married, and had 5 children born between 1862 and 1872. A number of discrepancies in the accounts were identified in December 1875, and Close was suspended from his duties.   A London firm of accountants was called in, and they found evidence of false accounting, fraud and forgery, concluding that a total of £2,403 18s 9d was missing. Pursued by a dedicated police officer  In early January 1876 it was reported that Close had 'disappeared', and enquiries established that he and his family had sailed from the Thames in the Highflyer , a sailing ship bound for Australia. The Middles...
Read more