History Archives - Page 7 of 9 - Friends Of Hull General Cemetery

Next Month

April 1, 2021April 1, 2021 by Pete Lowdenin Events, History, News, Volunteers

Next month it’s hoped to bring you the story of the Eleanor Crosses that grace the Hull General Cemetery. A sad tale of loss in one case and perhaps an expression of guilt in another.

I’m hopeful of also beginning the tale of how Hull gained the cemetery which I’d hoped to bring you this month but Charlie Collinson took longer than I thought. I thought i should show him the same kind of respect that some of the other, more respectable or should I say richer – people get.

There will be more nature notes from Helena and more fabulous photographs.

Plus any news regarding the Cemetery that comes my way. Any activities by the FOHGC that are fit to print, and, of course, the monthly anniversary post.

Your comments are always welcome. I can’t reply via this website but I try to reply via email if the email wants a reply.

Pete Lowden

Pete Lowden is a member of the Friends of Hull General Cemetery committee which is committed to reclaiming the cemetery and returning it back to a community resource.

petelowden.co.uk

A Grave Digger

April 1, 2021April 1, 2021 by Pete Lowdenin General, History1 Comment

There was someone in the story of Hull General Cemetery who saw quite a lot of the changes in the Company’s fortunes. This man undertook the job without which the cemetery could not function. That role was as a grave digger. The person’s name was Charles Collinson. Obviously he was not the only grave digger that the Company employed throughout its existence. However he serves as a good example of someone who fulfilled that role.

His part is not widely known unlike many of the servants of the Company. He is not one of the great and good. His remains do not still grace the cemetery. However, in terms of longevity, Charles Collinson matches few other people whose lives were entwined with the cemetery. Here’s his story.

Early years

Charles Collinson was born in the June of 1882 in Driffield, East Yorkshire.

As can be seen from his birth certificate, his father, Stephen, was born in Bainton. His mother, Annie, born in Fridaythorpe. They were obviously a typical family living in rural Britain at that time. When mechanisation was beginning to make great inroads into agricultural practices. A time of change.

His father was listed as a general labourer in the 1891 census. A job with few prospects and one that was far from secure. The young Charles was also listed on that census as a scholar, aged eight, along with his elder sister Ada, ten, and his younger brother, George, six years old.

School

Charles attended the Driffield Local Board School. He enrolled there on the 13th May 1889 and left on the 26th June 1894.

He was lucky. Elementary education became an obligation on the parents of children from 1876 and by 1880 attendance at school, rather than home schooling, was compulsory.

This length of time in education was almost certainly the norm for that time. After all the education system of the period, at least for the working class, was fairly basic.

Literacy and numeracy, coupled with a smattering of rudimentary geography and history would have been the academic subjects covered. Sometimes sewing and basic crafts such as tailoring and shoe repairing were also added to the curriculum. And, of course, religious studies were usually mandatory. By 1899 the school leaving age was raised to 12 years of age.

As we can see Charles left on his 12th birthday and had enrolled a few days before his 7th birthday. Therefore he attended for roughly just over 5 years of schooling.

School attendance was often also worse in rural areas at this time. Young children had been used since medieval times for some mundane tasks. Crow scaring, tending flocks, stone picking; all were jobs that a needy family would have expected their offspring to do. It was well known that village schools would have poor attendance during harvest time. So, out of that 5 years of schooling, we have no way of knowing how much time Charles actually spent in the classroom.

Work

The next time we encounter Charles is in the census of 1901. He is no longer living in the parental home although he still lives in Driffield.

As you can see from the above, he is now 18 years old and is now a boarder.

The head of the household is a farm hand and Charles is listed as a servant. It is unlikely that a farm hand would have been in a position to afford to employ a servant. So, it’s more likely that Charles was the servant to a local farmer and drove one of the farmer’s wagons.

The prospect of Charles following in his father’s footsteps was extremely likely from this census entry. However, that didn’t happen.

Marriage

We next meet Charles on his wedding day. We do know that he married Gertrude Harriett Putt in 1906. The marriage took place in Driffield and Gertrude was a Hull girl, from the Hessle Road area. Her family was steeped in the fishing community ways. All the females in her family had been listed on past censuses as net braiders or fishing net menders.

So, here is a question that I don’t have any answers for. How did these two people meet? I can theorise but that’s all it is.

Its probably more likely that Charles travelled to Hull rather than Gertrude to Driffield. I’ve written before on other sites on this topic. The towns and cities of Victorian Britain only maintained their massive population growth due to immigration from the rural hinterland. Child mortality being what it was, without this immigration town and cities would quickly have become deserted. So, its reasonable to suspect that Charles came to Hull to escape the life of a ploughman.

He may have been forced into this. Agriculture at this time was shedding many jobs due to the introduction of machines. Threshing, baling, ploughing etc., were all jobs previously done by hand but now were mechanised. So it’s reasonable to suggest that Charles came to Hull rather than Gertrude going to Driffield.

Looking around when he arrived in the big city, and being a farm boy, I would suspect that factory work was probably not to his taste. What else would appeal? The fishing industry was in its heyday but perhaps Gertrude warned him against that prospect. She’d have seen enough tragedy related to that kind of work living where she did. Construction work was a possibility but it was subject to seasonal fluctuations and was not seen as a steady job.

City life and parenthood

Now what job would be transferrable from the rural to the urban setting? Think horses. Yes, Charles became a blacksmith. We know this from the baptism record of his son, Charles Henry Collinson. This boy was baptised on the 16th October 1907 at the parish church in Driffield. Yet the address given was 6, Myrtle Grove, Selby Street in Hull. Selby Street in 1919 is pictured below.

They had travelled the 20 miles or so from Hull to Driffield to celebrate the christening of their son with Charles’ family (and possibly Gertrude’s too). My imagination sees a hired wagonette, gaily festooned, and full to the brim of relatives out on a ‘Beano’ to celebrate the christening. Lets hope they stayed overnight.

Blacksmithery was a good trade. However, by the first decade of the 20th century, horses were soon to be a thing of the past. Charles, I suppose, would have been looking round for something with more future. Now, I do admit this is tenuous, but a job as a grave digger offered both outdoors work and the prospect of steady work. I think he may have turned up at the superintendent’s office sometime between 1907 and 1911 and asked if the cemetery had any vacancies.

Back in 1974 I remember a younger version of myself doing much the same at the office at Pearson’s Park. I’d like to bet that Charles received the same answer that I did which was, ‘When can you start?’

1911

So, with the 1911 census, we come to the first solid evidence that Charles worked in HGC. The 1911 census also gives us evidence that Charles or Gertrude were literate and numerate as the 1911 census was completed by the occupier. Sadly, the educated one was more likely to be Charles. Even though he experienced schooling in a rural setting, education for girls was often seen by the families and authorities as a waste. As such many girls and young women were trained as domestics where literacy and numeracy were not vital to the task of scrubbing.

Charles was now employed by the Company. There are so few records left with information about the actual employees other than the superintendents. It is quite refreshing to find records of others. In Charles Collinson’s case, this was the beginning of a long, and sometimes, turbulent relationship that lasted until at least the 1960s.

From the census form we can see that the Collinson family had moved from Selby Street, a little further down Anlaby Road towards the town. Their new address was 2 Maple Avenue, Convent Lane. The corner of Convent Lane and Anlaby Road is pictured below.

Holidays

Charles joined the Company’s pay roll at an auspicious time. In the August of 1911 the Board was informed of a development. This was that their grave digging staff made a request to have holidays. Apparently they knew that the Corporation grave diggers just up the road in Western Cemetery were allowed such frivolities. The grave diggers wondered if holidays could be extended to them. A serious discussion took place and, in a spate of generosity not usually seen, the Board agreed to this request as you may see below.

The Great War

The next time Charles comes to our attention is during the First World War. You’d probably think that digging graves would be a reserved occupation. This was not the case. Unlike train drivers, coal miners and farm workers, grave digging was not seen as vital to the war effort. Of course, the government wanted the dead burying, if for nothing else, than to keep up the morale of the people. And, in a perfect world, such workers would not have been required to serve in the forces. Sadly, by 1916, the losses in the conflict had reached such proportions that conscription was imposed to fill the gaps.

In January 1916 the Military Service Act went through Parliament and single men could be compel to enlist in the forces. By the June of that year the Act had been amended to include married men. This meant that Charles, being a man in his thirties, was in the frame for being called up to the colours.

That very month the papers arrived and although the Company sought to having him exempted they withdraw their objections when they managed to get someone to replace him. So Charles went off to the Army.

Unfortunately I have not found his Army record. It may well have been part of the cache of Army records that were destroyed by enemy action in the Second World War. We do know he was conscripted and served. We also know that when he was released from military service. He returned back to his old job as a grave digger in the Cemetery on the 11th February 1919.

Back home

During the early years of the 1920s the wages of the staff of the Cemetery was comparable to the Corporation’s staff. During the First World War scarcity of labour had allowed wage inflation to take place. Its doubtful if Charles gained from this experience much. When he returned to his grave digging post he probably was surprised at the amount he was paid. Touching over £3 10s per week it would have been a welcome sight.

Sadly it wasn’t to last. From 1922/3, the economy began to contract, especially in the old heavy industries such as ship building and mining There was now a surplus of labour. As a result wage contraction and unemployment set in. By 1926 this resulted in the General Strike.

The grave diggers had had their wages reduced gradually over this period. By April 1924 the wages had been reduced to £2 17s 6d. The manual staff, I’m pretty were sure grumbling to themselves. However, probably looking around at the wider world, I’m also sure they will have kept their heads down.

Sherwood Avenue

Around this time Charles and Gertrude moved into their final family home. No.4, Sherwood Avenue, Welbeck Street. Both Charles and Gertrude, hopefully revelling in her new found right to vote, are present on the electoral rolls for Spring 1921 at this address.

Above is the Sherwood Terrace name plate and below is No 4, Sherwood Terrace today, with HGC as the backdrop to the right.

The 1930s

Charles next comes to our attention via a brief mention in the Company Minute books for 1931. He and his fellow workers, Tebb, Hunt and Wilson were to receive a Christmas Box from the Company totalling 30/-. This was divided up into 10/- for Collinson, 7/6d each for Tebb and Hunt and 5/- for Wilson. So why did Charles receive the lion’s share of this largesse? The answer is simple. Charles had now reached the elevated position of Foreman grave digger. Having worked for the Company for over 20 years he had reached, probably, the pinnacle of his desires. Later in the decade it was all to come crashing down.

Some of you may remember me lamenting Michael Kelly’s disposal of some of the Hull General Cemetery’s documentation during World War Two. One thing that has survived this rash act of destruction are a few pages of a wages book of the period.

As you can see by 1937 Collinson was still the Foreman grave digger. Another grave digger was Kinsley and the residual arm of the now defunct stone yard staff was Tebb whose pay was dictated by the work he had to do.

Tebb received 1/7d per hour and extra for the lettering he did. In stone he received 10d a dozen, in marble 1/1d a dozen and finally in granite 2/7d per dozen. But as you can see in the above wages book this man’s wage varied greatly.

1938

The year 1938 is important in modern history. It was the highpoint of the appeasement policy by Britain and Frnace of the dictators of Europe. The image of Neville Chamberlain waving a scrap of paper on Croydon Airfield after returning from Munich are redolent of a shameful period in our history. With the western democracies betraying the Czech people to seven years of brutality under the Nazis and 45 years under Soviet control it was a time of national shame.

Coincidentally the year was one of shame for Collinson too. By this time Charles was now 56 years old. He’d been employed by the Company at least 27 years. He’d probably risen as far as he could in its service. He lived close to his place of work in a nice little two bedroomed house in a nice area. What could possibly go wrong and spoil this idyll?

The Hull Daily Mail

The Hull Daily Mail of the 26th September ran a headline that did just that.

It read, ‘Robbed Child’s Grave to Win Prize at Flower Show.’ Here was Charles Collinson’s Munich.

And that man in the dock was Charles. Apparently he had stolen , for a long period, choice blooms from graves to enhance his chances of winning local garden shows. Perhaps not showing a great deal of intelligence, he produced winning displays, consisting of exotic flowers, that he claimed he had raised himself. The organisers of the shows had had their doubts about Collinson’s flowers’ pedigree for some time but kept these doubts to themselves.

No, it wasn’t the success at the flower shows that caught Collinson. It was the actions on the part of the bereaved who saw their flowers disappearing and complained. Complained to the Cemetery and the Police. One of them had even written to the Home Secretary with the aim to have his child exhumed from the cemetery all together.

To catch a thief

The police used a novel method to capture the perpetrator. They marked flowers with pin marks on a grave that had often been targeted. The next day, out of 12 chrysanthemums placed on the grave, only seven remained. The police must have had a good idea who was committing the thefts as they then went to a local flower show and watched Collinson prepare a vase for display. After he had left the show they took possession of the vase and found two of the marked flowers. The police searched his greenhouse where they found two more chrysanthemum blooms marked with a pin hole.

During questioning about this, Collinson said he had bought them from a local shop. When told he was suspected of stealing them from graves he said he bought them in the Market Hall.

Detective Bishop informed the Hull Daily Mail that they had received numerous complaints over the last five or six years.

The article went on to say,

And so we come to the judgement of the Magistrates. But first let’s look at how the Company dealt with this shocking news.

The Company’s view

On the 23rd September, some 2 days before the case came to Court, the directors, at an Special Board meeting, discussed the ramifications of it. Michael Kelly, the superintendent, informed the Board that Collinson had told him that he intended to plead guilty to the charge.

So, as you can see, if the Court did not impose a custodial sentence upon Collinson, the Company were prepared to continue his employment.

A step down

His position would be inferior, as would be his wages, to his present position. However, he would still be employed. Another interesting point is that Kinsley would now be the Foreman Gravedigger, yet the Company chose this moment to reduce not only Collinson’s wage but also to reduce the wage that the foreman would earn. In essence the Company won both ways.

The magistrates did act leniently towards Collinson. He was fined £5 with the alternative of 30 days imprisonment. Collinson chose the fine. The Court said they had taken a ‘very considerate view of the case’. During the hearing they had heard from Michael Kelly about Collinson’s record of work at the Cemetery but this was not a vital factor that allowed the Court to act in such a way.

No, sadly, there was another more important factor that gave the magistrate’s their opportunity to be lenient

Gertrude

As we have seen Gertrude had married Charles in 1906 and had borne a child, a boy, in 1907. Since then her presence in this story has not been great. Now it does. The magistrates had mentioned in their deliberations, reported by the press, that Collinson had a sick wife. It was probably this factor that had stopped Collinson going to prison.

We know little about Gertrude’s illness.

Of interest she is not recorded at the house in Sherwood Avenue on the 1939 register. Yet, Charles is, and he states he is married. So any marital difficulties that the trial may have thrown up are not apparent. I would surmise that Gertrude was in hospital at the time of the taking of that register.

I am basing this assumption on her death certificate.

The cause of death

The cause of death is interesting. Basically Gertrude died of a stroke or heart attack. Fatty plaque deposits thickening on the walls of the arteries, eventually leading to a blockage that results in a stroke or heart attack is quite common now. In the past such incidents were less well diagnosed. Often sudden deaths such as this were termed apoplexy and even further back in time, visitations.

One of the side effects of this disease is vascular dementia. We are familiar with senile dementia today. Vascular dementia is similar in its effects but the cause is many small mini-strokes that damage the brain cumulatively. Symptoms are weeping, apathy, transient befuddlement. Such symptoms in the 1930s and 40s may well have meant some care in a hospital. Worse cases would have probably been cared for in mental establishments. Was this where Gertrude was on the night of the 1939 register?

I also note that she died outside the Royal Infirmary in Prospect Street. Were Gertrude and Charles entering or leaving the Infirmary when she died? Charles states that he was present at her death. Knowing that a heart attack or stroke is a matter of moments, Charles must have been by her side rather than being called to her side from home or work.

Yes, of course much of this is supposition, but it does chime with the facts that we know. Gertrude was buried in HGC, in the same grave of her son, Charles Henry.

Charles Henry

We saw the christening of Charles Henry in Driffield and I had hoped that there had been a suitable party to celebrate. We then saw Charles Henry in the 1911 census. A child of three. Our next chance to check up on him would be the 1921 census, to be released in 2022. He does not feature in any register or record set that can be accessed at this time. Apart from, that is, the record of his death.

Charles Henry Collinson, a youth of 19, died on the 21st October 1926 and was buried on October 25th. His cause of death was heart failure as a result of pulmonary tuberculosis. TB was rife in these times and was known as the silent killer. In Victorian times it was often termed consumption.

The cause of the disease was not known for along time. Simon Wills states in, How Our Ancestors Died, that the medical profession cited many reasons for catching it, ‘consumption of alcohol was linked to to the cause of TB , as was masturbating.’

In 1882 Koch, famed for his work on cholera, discovered that TB was caused by a type of bacteria. Unfortunately that didn’t make it easier to avoid catching it. My paternal family in Dundee, between the period of 1870 and 1878, lost four members of the family all from TB. Living in crowded tenements its difficult to see how one could avoid it. My great grandfather did, but only by going to sea at 14 years old.

A TB sufferer would expel the bacteria every time they coughed and coughing was what they did a lot of. Some times the coughing fits themselves were dangerous and I believe that this is what happened to young Charles Henry. That during a violent coughing fit his heart failed under pressure. The family grave is pictured in the foreground of the image below.

Charles alone

So, in the midst of the Second World War, Charles was left alone. We have no knowledge of any extended family he could turn to. It’s possible that he still had one of two contacts amongst his gardening friends but his conviction may have soured that type of relationship. The only thing he had left was his work.

Luckily, he was now much too old to be conscripted for the forces in this war. So his job was safe. Not only safe but enhanced. Once again the armed forces recruitment meant a shortage of labour. With the result that wages rose. In Collinson’s case the war also meant that he was now the sole remaining grave digger as Kinsley had been called up for service in the Royal Navy in the October of 1939. He was once again the Foreman grave digger, but he was only in charge of himself.

In September 1941 Michael Kelly reported to the board that he was having great difficulty in recruiting labour owing to the war. By 1943 Collinson was earning £3 17s a week which was over a £1 more than at the start of the war. Collinson was now aged over 60 years old. And it probably showed in his work.

Time to go?

In July 1945 at a Board meeting it was suggested that a replacement for Collinson should be sought as he was, “now (an) aged man and unwilling or unable to do any more work than he is obliged to do now, namely grave digging.”

This plan didn’t work. They did manage to employ a Thomas Stanworth as a a labourer in the November but also had to increase Collinson’s wage to £4 10s as, unsurprisingly, finding people willing to dig graves is not as easy as it sounds.

By April 1946 the Board had decided to dispense with Collinson.

A strange decision. Elements of paternalism yet quite brutal. However this decision shows the situation the Company now found itself in. Where the saving of £3 a week on a wage was important yet the Company also recognised a debt of loyalty to Collinson. It was all hot air anyway.

By the next month the Board had reversed its decision and both Stanworth and Collinson were reprieved. This may be due, in part, to the resolution of a concurrent debate in the board room. This debate was, how could they reverse their generous decision. made only two years previously, to give an annual pension of £200 to Michael Kelly.

Michael Kelly, had been the superintendent of the Cemetery since the 1890s and was an ill man at his retirement. Indeed he died in 1949. As a gesture to his long service and extremely good handling of the affairs of the cemetery this pension was given. By the May meeting of 1946 the matter was decided,

“The directors gave full and careful reconsideration to the several matters referred thereto at the last meeting of the Board and in the light of all the circumstances. As they now appear it was resolved that the sum of £250 in value of 3% War Stock be given to Mr Kelly on the 31^st inst. as an outright payment in lieu of the pension hitherto given him and resolved further that the wages of the labourer’s Collinson and Stanworth remain as at present, namely £4 10s and £4.8s respectively subject to revision in 6 months’ time.”

Stanworth didn’t wait for any revision and left the month after. He’d seen what the Board had done to its most faithful servant, Michael Kelly. He must have guessed that whatever ‘revision’ happened it wouldn’t be positive. And it wasn’t.

Collinson, of course, had nowhere to go. At 64 he was virtually unemployable and by now, he was probably reluctant to change his habits. He would wait for the results of the revision.

Frank Coulson

In the October that year a new name appeared. This man’s name was Frank Coulson. A Londoner, and known as ‘Cocker’ probably because he called everyone ‘Cock’, he featured in my life too. He was my first foreman at Northern Cemetery back in the 70s. However this was his first job as a grave digger. He shadowed Collinson for a week, learning the job and at the end of that week, Collinson’s long service with the Company was terminated on the 19th.

As Lord Stafford said on the scaffold in 1641, ‘Put not your trust in Princes’. Frank should have taken note. Some two years later Coulson himself was sacked. Not because he was a poor worker. Indeed he kept the cemetery going singlehandedly. No, it was the dire financial circumstances that the Company now found itself that they could not afford his wages.

Reprise

So where was Charles? Was this the final part in his long acquaintance with the cemetery? As he has really left the stage?

No, of course not. The week after Coulson’s employment was terminated, Collinson was back on the payroll. the change, as demonstrated by the page from the wage book, was seamless.

We have no knowledge of who made the first move to rekindle the relationship. I would suspect that it was the Company. In December 1948, when Coulson lost his job, the Board had stated that grave digging would be done on a casual basis. This would have meant that they could employ Collinson’s skills on an ‘as and when’ basis. This arrangement would have probably suited Collinson too as by this time he would have been receiving his old age pension.

And so Charles Collinson, who’d probably known the cemetery in its Edwardian pomp, with a large workforce, was the last grave digger. Indeed the last manual worker for the Company.

The 1950s

Collinson doesn’t feature much in the years afterwards. He crops up in April 1957. By this time he would have been 75 years old. The Board meeting of that month makes mention that Collinson may be able to patch up the fence near Welbeck Street.

As you can see from the wording above, Collinson was now being asked to do jobs rather than told to do them. I would think that whether he did them was dependent upon whether he had the stamina and strength.

At this board meeting the directors also spoke of their agreement with Sam Allon Ltd to demolish the stone yard. Sam said he would do for free if he could keep the materials. The Company were delighted. In the end Sam Allon must have made a profit for he gave the Company £15 afterwards.

The last of the Kelly’s

In August 1957, the Board were informed that both Ann and Cicely Kelly, Michael’s daughters, wanted to retire. Ill health was cited.

Cicely also mentioned that Collinson had ‘expressed a wish also to give up his duties.’ Was Collinson influenced by the Kelly sister’s imminent retirement? Did he see this as an indication of an end of an era? After all he had seen the stone yard demolished recently and the superintendent’s house had recently been converted into flats.

As I said at the beginning of this piece, Collinson witnessed many changes in the Cemetery’s life. He may have seen enough.

By the following May, Ann had died. At the Board meeting that month the management of the cemetery was discussed.

Sporadic glimpses of Collinson emerge after this.

In a letter from Payne & Payne, accepting that some nuns could be exhumed and re-interred in Northern Cemetery, it is mentioned that,

“It would perhaps be well to make it clear to Mr Moses (the undertaker) at the outset that it is no use relying on Charlie Collinson to do all the necessary manual work, because although I dare say Collinson would like to supervise the job, I think at over seventy, it is asking too much of him.”

The old retainer

In the same year, and from the same source, the Company’s solicitors, who were now managing the cemetery, another mention of Collinson is made.

“Dealing with the loss of Collinson’s ladder, I think we should perhaps offer to help him with the cost of materials if he himself is building a replacement. As you know unless he can use the short cut over his back wall into the cemetery, he has rather a long walk on to the job, but I will leave this to you to deal with as you think best.”

There is an element of paternalism here now in talking of Collinson. He has almost assumed the role of the old family retainer; still present but unable to do what he used to do but no one has the heart to tell him to go.

Our final glimpse of the man on a personal basis comes from the same source, the Company’s solicitors. On the 25th June 1960 a letter was sent to Collinson. It read,

“Dear Mr Collinson, it has come to the Director’s notice that the 26^th is your 80^th birthday. The directors have asked me to take this opportunity of passing your birthday greetings from them, and also to express their continuing appreciation of your services to the company.”

Unfortunately, the letter is some two years early as he was only 78 at the time. Still, I’m sure it was a nice surprise for him and good gesture from the Company.

Our final glimpse of this man is from the minutes of the board meeting of the 27th August 1968. The secretary, Ms Boetham, reported to the board the current situation with regard to the maintenance of the cemetery.

Four years later the Company wound itself up. Its a pleasing thought that Charles Collinson was still there, with his spade, when the flag was metaphorically rung down on it.

If he was still there on the Company’s books he would have ben employed by the Company for, at least 61 years and at most 65 years. A considerable amount of time by any standards.

Afterwards

At this time its also conceivable that Charles witnessed, from his bedroom window, as the tractors moved in during 1977. Demolishing in weeks what he’d spent almost his whole working life trying to maintain. I wonder how he felt?

Another bitter pill for him was that when the Hull City Council took over the site no further burials would be permitted. Therefore Charles could not be buried with his wife and son. Charles was to be alone in death too.

Charles died on the 15th December 1979 from bronchial issues. He was cremated. His abode at death was Aneurin Bevan Lodge. He had forsaken Sherwood Avenue after 50 plus years.

Its intriguing to think that I, who began work in Western and HGC in May 1979, may have met this man. If he had been able to pay a visit to his old work place of course. And the likelihood of that, when he was aged 97 years old, is slim.

A silly fancy no doubt, but us hand grave diggers need to stick together. There aren’t many of us left. We really are a dying breed.

Postscript

Unfortunately, the image at the top of this article is not Charles. It is of a grave digger at Mottram Cemetery, pictured at the turn of the 20th century.

There are no images of Charles that I know of. He was just another of the characters who featured in the life of the cemetery who we have no idea of their likeness. These include John Solomon Thompson, the first and best chairman of the Company, and John Shields, the first superintendent of the cemetery, who helped Cuthbert Brodrick lay out the cemetery. So, Charles Collinson is one of the ‘missing’.

But wait a minute! As you may remember when Charles was due to go to Court, the directors of the Company said he’d been employed , in 1938, ‘for well-nigh 30 years’. The trial was in the September so Collinson could have started in employment for the Company during October of 1908 at the earliest.

Here’s an image taken from the Hull Daily Mail of December 1908 at the funeral of a Mr. Moran in Hull General Cemetery. The caption is of gravediggers laying the wreaths on the grave. Is Charles Collinson one of these hazy, fuzzy figures? Well, your guess is as good as mine but let’s hope that it is. If it is we are lucky and if it isn’t, well let’s pretend it is. I think Charles deserves that, don’t you?

Pete Lowden

Pete Lowden is a member of the Friends of Hull General Cemetery committee which is committed to reclaiming the cemetery and returning it back to a community resource.

petelowden.co.uk

The work done by the FOHGC during early spring

April 1, 2021April 1, 2021 by Pete Lowdenin Events, History, News, Wildlife

The work done by the FOHGC during early spring has continued during the present lock-down period. Obviously the bird nesting season has begun during this particular period so the FOHGC has taken this factor into account in their planned work. The volunteers have been keeping their social distance and taking additional precautions. The work done by the FOHGC during early spring is noted below. The further work that took place in March follows on.

Summary of activities in February

Hull City Council Planning Department have advised us that we do not require planning permission for the storage cabin. The cabin will be ordered in the near future.

The buzzard appeared to have left the site. This was not the case however, and it has since been sighted several times.

The Facebook site continues to grow under the management of Barbara Lowden, and we now over 1000 members!

Pete Lowden continues to add various new facilities onto our website, including past research, news updates etc. This seems to be very popular. Pete is also trying to get guest ‘specialist’ writers to contribute.

The photographic record and the digitising of the burial records

The Photographic Record Project is now complete and transferred onto Access Database. This is complete with a ‘name’ index on Excel Spreadsheet, although the volunteers seem to be finding even more unrecorded stones! Several more previously unrecorded graves have been uncovered by the volunteers. These have been photographed and placed on the database and highlighted as a new find.

Kevin Rudeforth will try to upload the database to the Website. A copy will be available to East Yorkshire Family History Society, the Carnegie Trust and the Hull History Centre.

Eva La Pensee, secretary of the FOHGC, has contacted Philip Hampel, Principal Conservation Officer. Philip’s area of responsibility lies mainly in terms of heritage. He thanked the FOHGC for their work in HGC and said that the digitising of the burial records will be a great resource.

The digitising of the records is ongoing so it is difficult to give a precise figure of how much has been done. The work was divided into five yearly periods. Each volunteer went away with their ‘period’. The entire 20th century is now digitised. The project, although no end date was put forward, will likely be completed early next year. Our partners mentioned above, in terms of the photographic record, will receive a copy of the work.

The snowdrops have had a great show this month and the daffodils are now coming into full bloom. Eva La Pensee donated a large number of hawthorn, blackthorn and buckthorn plants. They have all now been planted alongside the Workhouse Area path. All appear to be healthy and well established now.

Meetings

Subsequent to the Zoom meeting, Karen Towner, Helen Bovill and William Longbone met up with Andrew Gibson of Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, the notes of which were circulated.

Jennifer Woollin has emailed copies of the digitized Tree Survey which were circulated.

Karen Towner, Helen Bovill and William Longbone met with Jennifer Woollin on the 2/3/2021. This was to look at the tree survey plans and discuss the planting regimes. I will circulate my notes over the next couple of days.

Two more nesting boxes have been made by volunteer Andy Lister, depicting the names of WW1 and WW2 fallen. These were erected in the central wild flower meadow.

Insurance cover

We understand that the Hull Civic Society have decided not to include FOHGC on their future insurance policy. This is disappointing, as we have had no formal notification or reason from the them for its decision. We will now arrange our own cover by for the coming year.

Vine wires have been fixed on the rear of a building near the demolished chapel. Honeysuckle and ivy have been planted there. It is hope they will conceal the wall.

We are still awaiting the chippings from Hull City Council. The chippings will enable the volunteers to maintain the pathways.

One of the descendants of the cooper on the whaling ship ‘Diana’ has adopted Gravill’s monument and planted it with snowdrops.

Ground ivy

The FOHGC have obtained permission from Jennifer Woollin to remove ground ivy from the wild garlic sites and other localized areas. This includes any gravestones. The wild flower meadow can now be made ready for planting. We are advised this should not adversely affect nesting birds.

We haven’t yet received the accounts, but there have been no outgoings this month, except for the £10 subscription to the National Association of Cemetery Friends.

There is an area at the rear of the cemetery near the wildflower meadow. Many damaged kerb stones have been left there and this area has long been used as a ‘dumping’ ground. It has now has now been tidied and planted with wild flower seeds. The kerbs have been checked for any numbers/inscriptions and recorded.

The work done by the FOHGC in March

The volunteers have been extremely busy during the March lock-down period, with the volunteers keeping their social distance and taking additional precautions.

Summary of activities in March

The storage cabin was ordered, delivered and erected in its agreed position at the rear of the Princes Ave shops. Thanks were given to Mike Tindall and Andrew Wilson for their support in obtaining the facility.

It has been fitted with storage and tool racking.

Further donation and more trees

A donation of £250 was received from Messrs Donaldson Filters to enable the group to purchase trees and plants. A further £20 was received from Stuart Johnson.

A flowering cherry was purchased and planted on the SBW verge, it is now in full blossom. In addition, an English oak, 2 silver birch and an alder have been purchased and planted.

We have been notified by the Woodland Trust that the 15 saplings awarded to us will be delivered in the next 3 weeks.

Nature

The snowdrops continued to have a great show this month, the daffodils are in full bloom and the bluebells and wild garlic are now awaiting their turn!

The hawthorn, blackthorn and buckthorn plants donated by Eva, and planted alongside the Workhouse Area all seem to be in bud and flourishing.

Several species of butterflies have been noted in the cemetery by Helen Bovill, particularly on the Spring Bank West frontage.

Many bird species, including blue tits, great tits, tree creepers, chaffinch and goldcrest have been seen in the cemetery this month.

There have been several sightings of the buzzard. We long to see a mate for him / her.

Visit from council officers

Jennifer Woollin and Adam Sivel-Thompson visited the site this month. They agreed that the trees that were adversely affecting the Thomas Stratten tomb and nearby grave can be removed by the volunteers. There are no nesting birds in them.

As agreed with Jennifer Woollin, environmental officer for the council, the volunteers have begun to prepare the wild flower meadow for planting. This should not adversely affect any nesting birds. We have many wildflower seedlings including sunflowers, cornflowers, cowslip etc ready for planting.

Jennifer and Adam Sivel-Thomson, one of Jennifer’s colleagues, were delighted to be shown the Giant Puffballs and Scarlet Elf Cup fungus. They said this fungus was particularly rare, especially in an urban environment.

Website and Facebook

Pete Lowden continues to add various new facilities onto our website, including past research, news updates etc. This is very informative and seems to be very popular, Helen Bovill has agreed to submit a monthly ‘nature’ post to the website. Pete is endeavouring to get guest ‘specialist’ writers to contribute.

The Photographic Record Project is now complete and transferred onto Access Database. The volunteers have found several additional headstones. These have been added to the database. Kevin is going to try and upload the database to the Website. A copy will be available to EYFHS, Carnegie Heritage Centre and the Hull History Centre.

The Facebook site continues to grow under the management of Barbara Lowden. We now have over 1070 members!

More discoveries

Captain William Cape died in the Crimea. The previously unknown plaque recording this has recently been unearthed. A frame made to keep it together has been assembled.

The Alder family’s unrecorded grave has been unearthed. This has a stylized Alder tree carved on it. The Friends have purchased an alder tree. In agreement with Jennifer Woollin and Adam Sivel-Thompson, it has now been planted adjacent to the Alder grave.

Insurance and chippings

The Civic Society have decided not to include FOHGC on their future insurance policy. The FOHGC still have had no formal notification or reason from the Civic Society for its decision. Quotations for a new policy to cover the volunteers activities and the cabin/tools etc have been received. The new premium will be approximately £250. Once we have agreement to proceed from the members Bill will organize the policy.

We are still awaiting chippings from HCC to enable the volunteers to maintain the pathways.

The cylindrical ‘granite’ off cuts, donated by Steve Griffin of Odlings Ltd, have been laid into the path near the Main Gate by Pete Lowden. When we receive another delivery, the other side of the path will be completed.

Awaiting accounts and bank statements

We haven’t yet received the accounts from Natasha, nor the bank statement from John Scotney, chair of the FOHGC. There has been quite a lot of expenditure this month with the cabin, trees etc. Bill Longbone has laid out the money and anticipates a cheque from Natasha in the near future.

Miscellaneous

After reporting the issue of dumped furniture in the yard of the rear of Princes Ave shops, most of it has now been removed. The volunteers will re-erect the broken fence to secure the property when it has all been cleared

Three signs advising that there is CCTV in the cemetery have been mounted. One is at the Thoresby St edible garden. The Princes Avenue shops has one. Another is near the laurel ‘drug den’.

Jennifer and Adam have confirmed that the volunteers can cut back the laurels as there are no birds nesting in there.

One of the members of the Facebook site purchased four further signs regarding littering. These were affixed prominently in the Thoresby Street cut through. Thank you Eloina.

Bill Longbone 26/3/2021

Pete Lowden

Pete Lowden is a member of the Friends of Hull General Cemetery committee which is committed to reclaiming the cemetery and returning it back to a community resource.

petelowden.co.uk

A Second Anniversary

March 1, 2021February 22, 2021 by Pete Lowdenin Events, General, History

5th March 1845

Yes, two anniversaries for the price of one!

This anniversary is so important that it will be the basis for an article next month. Suffice to say that I’m just giving you all a ‘heads up.’

This date was the first meeting of some interested individuals who met up with the idea of founding a General Cemetery Company. From this meeting a provisional committee was formed and the rest, as they say, is history. As an anniversary its pretty special

A long, interesting life

The Company had a long life over an eventful period of time. From its beginnings in the early years of Queen Victoria’s reign when the waltz was deemed quite risqué. Up to when its final board meeting took place in 1972. Just about then David Bowie was performing Ziggy Stardust on stage. During which he regularly simulated performing a ‘sex act’ upon Mick Ronson. My, how times do change! I doubt if Queen Victoria would have been amused.

The cemetery saw the greatest epidemic that Hull ever suffered. The Cholera epidemic of 1849 makes Covid look like a bout of hay-fever. It also witnessed the greatest level of destruction that the city ever suffered. This of course was the bombing during the Second World War. Indeed the cemetery too suffered in its own way at this time. Compartments 71 and 72 were bombed. Accidentally one hopes otherwise the German bombers definitely needed further training. The cemetery lodge was damaged too at this time although that was through shrapnel from AA guns.

Eventually, as we know, the Cemetery Company finally succumbed. The cemetery though continued in a different way. It is now an historic and cultural resource for the city. It also is a fascinating piece of urban ‘woodland’ with a large variety of birds and small wildlife.

The cemetery has had a full life. Long may it continue.

Pete Lowden

Pete Lowden is a member of the Friends of Hull General Cemetery committee which is committed to reclaiming the cemetery and returning it back to a community resource.

petelowden.co.uk

A Monumental Loss

March 1, 2021February 28, 2021 by Pete Lowdenin Events, General, History, Wildlife1 Comment

A momentous meeting

On the 25th of October 1977 a meeting took place that would finalise the future look of the Hull General Cemetery site. It was the culmination of a long journey for all the participants. The travellers on this journey were many and all wanted the best for the site. However the view of what that term meant was disputed. This is the story of that dispute.

One of the results of the meeting was the eventual loss of 4,000 of the 5,000 headstones. A significant reduction of the natural environment of the site was also lost. As the title of this piece suggests, ‘a monumental loss’ took place. Of natural habitats and more severely, of irreplaceable historic monuments. So how did that happen?

To find out we need to go back to the swinging Sixties

Liquidation

The Hull General Cemetery Company Directors’ meeting on the 27th August 1968 had a specific item on the agenda, which was not one of the usual ones. The item to be discussed was the cemetery’s future. The directors had authorised their solicitors, Payne & Payne, at a previous meeting, to approach Hull City Council. Their aim was to get the Council to purchase the cemetery from them. This would be the final time for both parties to raise this subject. Put simply, since the late 1850s, the Company had wanted to off load the Cemetery to the municipal authorities. In the past, each time this was discussed, both parties found some objection to finalising the deal. Therefore the Company directors were not hopeful this time either.

At this same meeting though, the directors faced the future square in the face and realised that the Company’s time was at its end. So the first steps towards the liquidation of the Company began.

Deja Vu?

However, this wasn’t the first time the liquidation of the Company had been broached at this level. The Directors’ meeting of the 8th September 1965 had an agenda item entitled, ‘Disposal of the Cemetery’.

But by 1968 the company had hit the wall. Its finances were non-existent. Its main income stream was the rental on the two flats on Spring Bank West that it owned, rather than its primary function of selling burials. The Company could afford no staff other than a part-time secretary, who also undertook the cemetery supervisory duties, although those were sparse now. It also employed an 86-year-old man to perform odd jobs on the ‘as and when’ basis. The Company could no longer maintain the grounds. It could not upkeep its boundary fencing. The maintenance of the graves it was paid to maintain stopped. Its stone masonry business had been wound down long ago. It rented out the old stone yard to a builder to park his lorry. It was defunct as a viable business and it knew it.

This approach to the Council could be seen to be the Last Chance Saloon for the Company. Could it afford to buy a round?

Turned down once again

Sadly, the response from Hull City Council was as expected. The Council were not against taking over the cemetery. To do so would probably save the Council money in the long run. It knew it was only a matter of time before the site fell into their hands.

The problem however was the finances. The Council could not justify taking on the liabilities of the cemetery company, even for nothing, if the shareholders did not contribute to the costs of reclaiming it from its present poor state. As they said, they had a responsibility to the rate-payers, and they felt the first port of call for money to refurbish the cemetery should be on the shareholders.

This was known as a Return of Capital and it proved a stumbling block, and it had been, whenever the idea arose of the Council taking over the site. As most of the shareholders were dead or now lived away from Hull, the Company could not see how the Return of Capital could be accomplished. And so, the idea of the Council taking over the cemetery fell at the same fence yet again.

The Limited Company gambit

The Company though were determined that this time they would seek a solution. It may not be the Council who took over the cemetery, but the directors were sure that the responsibility for it was no longer going to be theirs. They, therefore, turned towards the liquidation route. But to do this the Company needed to change its structure.

In 1845 the Cemetery Company was set up as a joint stock company and in 1854 it became an incorporated company by Act of Parliament. Neither of these structures allowed the Company to dissolve itself. As such, a change to the Company’s structure had to be made.

To achieve this end, the directors organised an extraordinary general meeting of the shareholders. The scale of attendance at this meeting showed how far the cemetery’s fortunes had fallen. In the Cemetery Company’s early days the AGMs used to be accommodated at the Vittoria Hotel on Queen Street and were usually attended by a couple of hundred people.

First steps to the edge

This meeting on the 19th August 1970, at the offices of A.J.Downs, Solicitors at 77A, Beverley Road, was significantly different in scale

A.J.Downs had been a previous chairman of the Company, and although he was now dead, his company still had a residual interest in the Company’s fortunes. The other factor at play here was that the Cemetery Company would not have to pay for the room for the meeting. Yes, the Company were in such straits that such small points as this were vital.

The meeting was attended by 10 shareholders representing only 153 shares. Seemingly minimal, this was probably the majority of the shares in circulation at this time. Many of the Company’s shares had been surrendered by their owners over the years to the Company, in exchange for grave spaces. Over time the number of shareholders had decreased bit by bit and the result was plainly evident at this meeting.

Decision time

The decision reached at this meeting was that the directors of the Company should pursue the aim of becoming a limited company. This goal was achieved by early 1972, and the Company directors now proceeded to take steps to dissolve the Company.

At a further Extraordinary General Meeting of the shareholders on the 22nd May 1972, a resolution was put to the meeting by the chair. This stated baldly, ‘that the Hull General Company be desolved.’ (sic)

At the last ever board meeting of the Company, held on the 6th June 1972, the chair told his fellow directors that the liquidation would commence when the liquidator was presented with the petition to liquidate the Company. He said he believed that would be in July and be completed by the October of that year.

The chair was a little optimistic about the timing. The final disclamation of the liquidation process was completed in October 1973.

Now we come to the involvement of Hull City Council in the future of the Hull General Cemetery site. Ultimately this involvement led to the October meeting in 1977.

The Council steps in

On the 19th June 1974, Hull City Council completed the purchase of the cemetery for the princely sum of £5. As we’ve seen already, it’s extremely doubtful whether the Council wanted it. However if they didn’t buy it, who else would?

Surprisingly, one interested group made a bid for it at the last ever board meeting of the Company back in 1972. That, however, may be another story for later.

Although the Council had bought the site, as the Hull Daily Mail said, the Council faced an estimated bill of around £60,000 to bring the cemetery into a fit state. That ‘fit state’ for the cemetery was based upon making the site into a ‘leisure resource’. The Town Clerk, A. B. Wood, said the cemetery was ‘a public disgrace’, a statement which obviously heralded some fundamental changes. Those changes would soon be evident.

However, some hurdles had to be overcome first. The Council had to apply to the Consistory Court, an ecclesiastical body, for what was called a ‘Faculty’. This would allow the Council to develop land that has had burials on it, without recourse to planning permission.

There’s going to be some changes

On 28th October 1975 the people of Hull were told by the Hull Daily Mail what the Council were planning.

Under the headline, ‘Bid to clear Hull Cemetery’, the intimation that the term ‘clear’ involved large scale demolition of headstones was revealed by the newspaper item above.

The Friends’ site

Two days later, the Town Clerk wrote to the Society of Friends regarding these plans. What the City Council appeared to have forgotten was that the Friends had a 999 year lease on their part of the Cemetery. Any plans relating to ‘clearance’ with this part of the Cemetery needed careful handling.

Later, during this process, the Council recognised that the Friends burial area was outside their remit. With the promise from the Friends that they would maintain their burial site, the Council shut its eyes and moved on. It had another 12 acres to ‘develop’.

Repeating the past

As the newspaper item above stated, the Council was to publish official notices of their plans for the site. This would enable people to raise objections to these plans.

To some extent this was a tried and trusted method that the Council had used before, during its programme of the levelling of the ground in all the municipal cemeteries. This programme began in the 1950’s and continued until at least 1974. This programme also included the development of other burial grounds outside their original control, that had fallen on hard times. These were Division Road cemetery, the Drypool and Southcoates burial ground, St Peter’s churchyard, Drypool and St Mary’s burial ground in Trippet Street.

Customarily from ancient times, graves were often ‘banked’ and ‘sodded’ and, of course, a large number of them had kerb sets erected on the grave plot. Thus a cemetery of the period often looked like a long series of hummocks interspersed with kerb sets.

The problem of grass

Maintenance was obviously a problem on a site like this. Grass cutting machines were nigh on impossible to manoeuvre over such ground. From the late 1950’s, the Council instituted the ‘lawn’ area development in both the Northern and Eastern Cemeteries. These were the only cemeteries still undertaking large scale amounts of burials at that time. This ‘lawn development’ was to be the pattern for new burials in those cemeteries and still continues in this way today. These areas could and are maintained by grass cutting machines.

This left the problem of what to do with the vast majority of the areas of all the municipal cemeteries that could not be ‘lawned’. Maintenance of the ‘banked’ graves was undertaken by scythe. It was, as I know from experience, an arduous task. One often felt that the grass was growing quicker than you could ever scythe it. Just using a scythe, sharpening it, keeping it sharp after blunting it on stones and clods of earth, and all on a hot day was a trial. And of course by the time you had finished the plot you were on, the grass you had first cut was already in need of a trim. We members of the workforce all thought it was the equivalent of the painting of the Forth Bridge but probably much less fun.

A cunning plan

The Council came up with a solution to part of the problem. They decided to level the ‘banked’ graves so they could be machine cut. The ‘sodding’ of graves was to be abandoned. However, the kerb sets would still present a problem to a straight run for the grass cutting machine. To solve this problem the Council came up with a plan. It would write to all the owners of graves that had kerb sets, large monuments or headstones on them. These monuments would hinder the proposed efficient cutting of the grass.

The Council offered to the owners a replacement headstone plus it also offered to meet the cost of erection of said headstone, if the owners allowed the Council to remove the kerb sets. It also offered to remove the kerb set and still leave the headstone that had been attached to the kerb set in situ, burying the bottom part in the ground. Just think of that. All of those old headstones you see in Northern, Western, Hedon Road and Eastern were once upon a time just the head of kerb set.

The Council also, rather cunningly, said in the letter, that not responding to the letter meant that the grave owner was accepting the offer.

Address not found

Now, when the grave was originally bought, the address of the purchaser was taken for the record. Over the intervening period, some of those addresses may have disappeared. This may have been due to Council clearances of unfit habitations, or possibly the result of aerial bombardment in World War 2. No matter, the Council still wrote to that address because, and to be fair, it was the only address they had for the grave owners.

However, it was also done in the almost certain knowledge that they would not receive as many replies and so could go ahead and remove the kerb sets.

Thus we have the cemeteries that we now know. And, as this system had worked so well for the Council in their own cemeteries, they now proposed to use it in Hull General Cemetery.

However, in this case they did not write to every relative. They simply posted a notice up in the cemetery for three months.

Objection overruled

Surprisingly, they did receive a number of objections. At the Consistory Court hearing in the second week of October 1976, there were 33 objectors, most of whom were relatives of people who were buried in the Cemetery.

A hand written copy of a reply from the Leisure Services Department to one objector was made by Chris Ketchell. I include it here. It shows that decisions about the cemetery had been made prior to the Court’s decisions and indeed those decisions were to be drastic.

That the Council thought that posting a notice in the Cemetery for three months was sufficient notice is also open to question. Many of the people whose relatives were buried in there were old, possibly infirm and probably couldn’t visit their relatives’ graves, especially as the Cemetery was in such a state.

Let’s not forget that the Cemetery Company had made an obligation to the families of those who were buried in there, when the grave was bought, that they would maintain the site.

No, I think that pinning a notice up in the Cemetery at that point was not the best method to inform people of the changes afoot.

The Court result

Unsurprisingly, with the Cemetery without ownership, the Company dissolved, the media speaking of it in terms of an ‘eyesore’ and ‘dumping ground’, and the general public seemingly uninterested, the Consistory Court approved the Council’s faculty bid. A flavour of the mood of the Court can be grasped by the comments of the Company’s liquidator and administrator at the time, Mr Galleway.

With such a ringing endorsement there is no wonder the Court took the decision it did.

However, the Court was also moved by the objectors, not least the Hull Civic Society, who were vociferous in their opposition to the plans outlined by the Council for the site. Indeed they had put forward other options taking into account both the historic aspects of the site and eminent naturalists’ views, such as Dr Eva Crackles. As such the Court’s adjudicator, the Rev. Elphinstone, said,

With the end of the adjudication Hull City Council were free to complete their task of developing the site. That plan was outlined by Tony Hawksley, Assistant Director of the Leisure Services Department, in the same article.

‘I love it when a plan comes together’, The A-Team

The problem was that the plan, especially in relation to the removal of the headstones, was so imprecise. Using terms like, ‘the removal of the majority of the monuments’, gave little to no indication of what that actually meant. What was a ‘majority of the monuments’? It was questionable whether anyone actually knew how many monuments were in there in the first place. To speak about a ‘majority’ of an unquantified number was ridiculous. Perhaps it heralded a more sweeping change for the cemetery.

It wasn’t until December 1976 that a detailed plan of what was to be left and what was to be removed was drawn up. The results were shocking.

In essence, out of about 5,000 headstones in the cemetery, the plans showed that about 40 to 50 would be left. Two areas were to have headstones left in situ. One of these was the area known as Prim Corner. It held the last resting place of William Clowes, the joint founder of Primitive Methodism. Clustered around his tomb were a number of headstones of his adherents and supporters.

The second area that was to have stones left in situ was the area east of the ruined chapel as can be seen at the top of the plan above. This no doubt was to fit in with a nebulous plan for the chapel that the Council were deliberating on. That too is part of another story for another time.

It seemed like a good idea at the time

Finally, the Cholera monument, the large obelisk denoting the last resting place of some of the victims of the Cholera epidemic in 1849, was to be moved southwards on to a totally different area. The large C in bold on the plan below was the chosen site for this monument in the future. Of all the decisions made at this time one has to question the reasoning lying behind that particular idea.

And yet, none of this happened. What changed the minds of the planners?

The response

The Hull Civic Society, under the active leadership of its secretary, Donald Campbell and its chair, John Netherwood, wanted the Council to heed the words of the Consistory Court adjudicator. As such they began to muster support. Letters were sent to other interested bodies ranging from the East Yorkshire Local History Society to the Victorian Society.

This rallying of support was not only confined to historical groups. Naturalist groups were also approached. The Hull Civic Society believed that the historic aspects of the cemetery were enhanced by the ones that nature provided. It was determined to protect the nature as much as the headstones. Dr Eva Crackles was approached. In her reply, having been at the meeting, she alluded to the Adjudicator’s comments,

Would the Council accept advice? As they had already outlined the plans for the site in the local press before the Consistory Court made its judgement that was unlikely. Still, hope springs eternal, as they say..

It is not a park. It is a garden of rest.

Correspondence between the interested parties continued for the rest of the year. The Council stating that plans had been costed and formulated. The objectors stating that these could be changed.

The Council offered the objectors the option, which they undertook, of meeting with the officers of the Council. These meetings appeared to be fruitful to some extent. The outline plan of removing the vast majority of headstones, and the large scale cutting back of the woodland, was said however to be non-negotiable.

The Town Clerk, in a letter to Donald Campbell, accepted that the Hull Daily Mail’s use of the term ‘park’ was not accurate. He said the idea proposed by the Council was to be more a ‘garden of rest’. The objectors accepted this was an improvement. The Town Clerk also went on to say that the site was still zoned as a cemetery and would be treated as such. This, too, was promising.

The representatives of the people didn’t want to meet the people

Finally, in early March 1977, the Town Clerk replied to yet another letter from the objectors, and invoking the Chair of the Leisure Services Committee’s words, it appeared the door was now closed to further suggestions.

So, in essence, the plans were set in stone. It was pointless to place the objectors’ views before the Committee. And anyway, the Chair and the Committee didn’t want to meet them. Now that wasn’t promising.

Enter an historian

Providentially, a two page hand written letter arrived with Donald Campbell on the 13th of the same month. It came from John Rumsby, the keeper of archaeology for the city, and someone who worked for the afore-mentioned Leisure Services Department. The letter, reproduced below, outlined the beauty and uniqueness of the monuments in the cemetery.

Perhaps not all the officers were in agreement about the proposed official ‘vandalism’?

This letter, suitably anonymised, was sent by John Netherwood to the Council as evidence from an ‘historian’ as to the value of the headstones. Did this letter have some effect?

Probably not on the Council for its doubtful if they knew it had been sent. However, I believe it gave the objectors some heart and John Rumsby’s part in this story does not end with this intervention.

The Council were relying on their grant application being successful. The grant from the Department of the Environment would go a very long way to offset some of the costs in developing the site. The figure of £40,000 to £60,000 had been used in press releases. Concerns were now being raised as to what the Council would be able to do if that money was not forthcoming. The Council did not want the cost to fall upon the ratepayers.

The fight back begins in earnest

It was at this point that two more factors came into play. Both of them were connected.

The first was that a lecturer at the Hull School of Architecture, Par Gustaffson, became interested in the plans for the Cemetery. Par was an architect from Sweden and he had come to Britain to work on the Byker Wall project in the north east.

Gaining a teaching post at the Hull School it is said that his lectures were legendary. They were so good the public often gate-crashed them. One student recalled that, ‘often one would find several old ladies in their best hats sitting on the front row’.

In regard to the Hull General Cemetery, Par, interviewed for an article in the Hull Daily Mail, in February of 1977, said that,

Par went on say, and in retrospect, his warnings ring as true today.

He said he had already contacted the Leisure Services Department with his ideas.

He also told the Hull Daily Mail that a final year student, John Waugh, had taken on the site as his final year project and had designed and incorporated many features that would enhance the site.

One particular feature was to have catered for the visually impaired. As John outlined this feature,

Unfortunately I have never seen a copy of John’s plans, nor was this aspect ever implemented. Could it have been implemented? Could it be implemented now?

But, as the article went on to say, the Council already had its plans drawn up as we saw earlier,

As The Hull Daily Mail went on to say, all of this depended upon the gaining of the grant from the DOE.

It also quite clearly stated that the plans of the Council were irreversible once put in motion and that the ultimate cost may well be paid in the future,

The second factor

Par Gustafsson, having worked at restoring Victorian cemeteries in his native Sweden, contacted the Hull Civic Society and other like minded people and organisations knowing that they were already involved. He also realised that the public needed to be mobilised before it was too late.

The first step to mobilising the public was to organise a public meeting and to call upon experts in their fields to assess the cemetery. When it came to experts, luckily he knew one or two. In fact the best in the business.

Another site visit but this time by experts

On the 22nd June a site visit was undertaken. Jenny Cox, a landscape architect with an especial interest in Victorian cemeteries and Dr James Stevens Curl, later Professor, a noted biographer of Victorian Cemeteries and Victorian architecture were the visitors. Accompanied by students from the Hull School of Architecture they toured the site. They later spoke at the public meeting, held that evening at Hymers College.

In his book, The Victorian Celebration of Death, published in 2000, Professor Curl recounts his and the Hull General Cemetery’s experience at this time.

‘Spring Bank Cemetery (by then extensively vandalised) was acquired by Hull City Council after the Cemetery Company went into liquidation in 1974, and it was proposed to clear the cemetery in the teeth of objections from the Friends of Spring Bank (who put forward less drastic alternative proposals), supported by the Victorian Society. The local authority went ahead regardless; most of the memorials were destroyed, and for good measure the boundary walls and cemetery offices were also demolished in an act of official vandalism of a particularly dreadful kind.’

Jenny Cox, the originator of the Highgate Cemetery plan, helped design and put forward the plan that Professor Curl makes mention of in the quote above.

This plan was rebuffed by the Council. They had already made their plans and saw no reason to change now.

The public meeting, arranged for that very day, attracted a large number of people. It took place at the Hymers College.

As can be seen in the copy of the flyer for the meeting, both visitors were to speak as was Tony Hawksley for the Council.

It was from this meeting that the Spring Bank Cemetery Action Group sprang. The group were unimpressed with the Council’s plans and mobilised in an attempt to thwart the plans the Council had put in place. Further meetings were planned and a determined campaign to enlist support from various sources, including celebrities, was put in motion.

However that is another story for another day.

The argument can be put forward that by this time it was far too late to materially affect the Council, and yet…

The power of the press?

On the 5th of July the Hull Daily Mail reported on the grouping later to be known as the Friends,

‘The City Council representatives present were given a clear enough mandate on what sort of finished result should be achieved’. The Hull Daily Mail were stating, in a more pleasant way, that the plans as put forward by the Council were not what the people wanted. In essence, they were told to go back and think again.

The idea of cost had been introduced by Campbell some time earlier in the discussions. He had pointed out that removing the headstones was a cost that the Council need not take on. He also pointed out that once the headstones were removed, and the area grassed, the maintenance costs would be increased. In essence, removing the headstones would increase the ongoing costs for the site. The logic was irrefutable. Not a good night for the Council.

The lobbying mentioned was also beginning to have an effect on the wider audience, if not yet on the Leisure Services Committee.

The local press were now questioning the validity of the plans, at least in terms of cost. This ‘cost’ could well fall upon the ratepayers and questions were being asked if it really was necessary. The Hull Daily Mail columnist, John Humber, was also sceptical and put forward in his column the idea of a ‘balanced’ approach to the development of the Cemetery site.

A change of heart or a change of mind?

A letter from the Director of the Leisure Services Department on the 21st July indicated a potential re-think on the part of the Council. Not a wholesale one, but a slight chink in the plans as shown above.

The letter began, quite plaintively, by saying that the Council hadn’t really wanted to take on the task of restoring the site, which was quite true. Now that it had taken on this role, it was a little put out that its plans were being objected to. There was an element of ‘hurt and misunderstood’ about the first paragraph.

So there!

It then went on to say that the plans were still open to discussion, something that the detailed plans, dated December 1976, and shown above, showed to be untrue. However, the change in tone in the local media had ruffled some feathers and this letter was the result.

It may be noted that the member of the Museum Staff mentioned was the same John Rumsby who had written to Donald Campbell earlier, and who, bravely, was also one of the attendees of the public meeting and spoke there.

Later still during this sorry saga, he was one of the signatories of the later petition against the ‘development’ of the site. A brave man indeed or perhaps just a principled one.

‘Points of detail’

So, the letter suggested that the ‘officers’ of the Leisure Services Department would be ‘receptive to suggestions on points of detail.’ Tony Hawksley, who wrote this letter, must have known that in putting this forward he was opening up the debate again. He may have felt that he was widening the debate a crack but the opposition would never be satisfied with that. But, to be frank, what could he do?

The issue may well have been done, dusted and dealt with in the Council chamber by December 1976, but that didn’t mean it was over in the wider world, as proven by the recent turmoil. Tony, being an experienced negotiator, also probably thought that due to the reception at the public meeting of the Council’s plans, a damage limitation exercise was needed. An olive branch here and there never hurt anyone, did it? Surely things couldn’t get any worse?

Still open to change?

About a month later, a letter from Mr Noel Taylor, the city’s chief planning officer, hit Chris Ketchell’s door mat. In it, Mr Taylor replied to a query from Chris regarding the possibility of the site becoming a conservation area. Chris had wondered if designating the site as a Conservation Area, in the legal sense, it then could provide some finance to develop the site more sensitively. Mr Taylor poured cold water on that idea. However, once again, the implication that the door was still open for modifications to the plans was put forward.

The ‘retention of some headstones of all types’ was a sea change from the paltry amount stipulated on the plan of December 1976.

The Chief Planning Officer was now making the same argument that the objectors had been making, with regard to ‘class divisions of Victorian society’ being highlighted by ‘retention’ of some of the headstones. This must have been music to the ears of the objectors. It mirrored Campbell and Rumsby’s points that they had put forward in the past. A ‘sea change’ indeed.

It was now early August. The temperature of the debate was about to rise.

Dead Poets Society

The very next day, this parochial debate, about what to do with a derelict cemetery, reached national proportions.

Philip Larkin had long been the friend and neighbour of Donald Campbell. Campbell had written to him as early as July 1974, on the issue of the development of the site. Larkin replied saying that he remembered visiting the site in 1955, when he first came to Hull and he thought it, ‘was a uniquely beautiful spot in which I spent many happy hours.’ He went on to say that,

‘I don’t know precisely what kind of support you think I could give (I am not very good at arguing with people, as everyone in this university will know) but I do think that the burial ground as we knew it was a remarkable relic of nineteenth century Hull and if it could be restored to its former beauty that would be the best course to adopt. If not, then let the current abandonment of it to hooligans cease.’

Poet laureate

Some 11 months later, Campbell wrote to Larkin again. Campbell asked if he would attempt to enlist the Poet Laureate, Sir John Betjeman, to support the campaign. Larkin wrote to Betjeman and Sir John said he would support the campaign.

On the 17th August the Hull Daily Mail, as well as a number of national newspapers, printed the story. The Hull Daily Mail used the following headline,

The article, which must have caused some anguish in the Council chamber, went on to state,

Well, no one had said before that the city of Hull was ‘lucky’ to have the Hull General Cemetery. Especially as it was, in all its splendid dishevelment. Surely the prevailing idea put forward was that it was an ‘eyesore’ and an embarrassment. The Council would address this problem in the future. It was this argument that would hopefully get the money from the government. The eye of the beholder is surely multi-faceted.

This intervention, on the part of two cultural icons, and on a national scale, was not in the script that the Council prepared. It really didn’t need this, not at this time.

Remember the DoE was still to rule on allocating the necessary grant money that was needed to put the Council’s plans in place. Bad publicity for the project was never to be on the agenda. Ignoring the wishes of a few like-minded ‘weirdos’ was fine and their objections could be brushed off. Not so the views of two of the most famous poets in Britain at the time. Time for a little back-tracking.

Another olive branch

The Council decided to offer a meeting. Not with the Leisure Services Committee. That could be viewed as conceding a point or two. No, a meeting was offered, but with the Director of the Leisure Services Department. A step in the right direction.

This took place on the 23rd August 1977. Donald Campbell and John Netherwood from the Hull Civic Society were invited to meet Tony Hawksley to try to resolve the differences that had arisen. Tony was only the Assistant Director but, for all intents and purposes, ran the Department.

Donald sent a letter to the members of the other interested parties on the 30th, describing how he saw how the meeting had gone.

So, how far apart were the two sides at this time?

We have seen a weakening of the position of the Council over this period but, as the letter above shows, the plan was still to have a wholesale destruction of the headstones.

Never the twain shall meet

Donald Campbell wrote to Tony Hawksley on the same day, outlining where the differences lay. Its worth looking at this letter in detail. Betjeman and Larkin were not the only ones who could soar poetically, but it also lays out quite clearly what could be lost forever if the Council failed to listen.

The indication here was that the Council were now being guided on headstone retention by John Rumsby which was a positive point. At least the headstones were being evaluated on their historical importance and artistic value rather than, as evidenced by the previous plan, how nice they looked in a group at certain points on the plan.

Cemeteries are depressing

Campbell then attempted, as I’m sure he did in the meeting, to point out the inconsistency and subjectiveness of the Council’s previous plans for the site.

One can’t help but applaud Campbell’s poetic use of language here.

And of course he is right. Thomas Gray’s, ‘Elegy in a Churchyard’, written in the 18th century, surely could have refuted this narrow parochial view of a cemetery as being depressing. Having met Tony Hawksley a few times in my working life, and he was a likeable chap, I can only suggest that he had reached a point in this discussion of having no other argument left and had to fall back on the old tired formula of cemetery equals grief and depression, therefore not enjoyable.

This line of argument I suppose can be excused to some extent. After all a cemetery can be a place where grief can be pervasive.

A lack of vision

However, what cannot be excused, is that the Council failed to grasp the significance of what they had to hand in the cemetery. It is sad that our local Council, in the face of expert advice from within and without, could not raise its gaze to look beyond its narrow plan and seek inspiration from the sensitive development of Highgate and Kensal Green. This really was a ‘once in a lifetime’ chance to preserve something that could not be replaced.

The problem, at least to my eyes, was how ‘progress’ was seen during that period. ‘Progress’ was usually defined as destroying something old, only to replace it with something new. So to destroy much of the cemetery’s habitat and headstones had to happen, if ‘progress’ was to occur. And ‘progress’ was defined by lawned areas. A poverty stricken definition of progress in my eyes. It’s not an approach that has necessarily gone away. However, it is a lot less evident these days and when it does occur it gets the response it deserves.

Another poet?

Campbell went on to say, and in my eyes, probably reached even more poetic heights…

The words paint the picture so clearly. The masterpiece was in danger of being lost; the magic at risk of being thrown away into the skip. If only the people with the power could be convinced of this argument, if only they could see what he could see.

He ended the letter with this plea:

Deaf ears

In response to this impassioned plea he received a brief letter. This said that his request for the survey results the Council had undertaken of the local residents was enclosed. This survey was supposed to show that the ‘public’ wanted the Council to go ahead and deliver on their plan.

This survey has not been seen by me so I cannot judge it. I do know from reports in the press that only 51 people responded to it. Of them, only 25% wanted the site fully cleared in accordance with the Council’s plan. So 13 people in the area, and I’m giving the Council the edge here in numbers, supported the plan. Hardly representative. Remember the historical clearing of the municipal cemeteries of their kerb sets and the notice hanging in Hull General Cemetery? Numbers only matter at election time. As long as you have been seen to do the ‘right thing’ and ‘follow the procedures’ there cannot be any backlash. The public were consulted and their views were taken into consideration; all 13 of them.

Hull City Council, at the time, had a way of working. Although appearing to take the public’s views into account, it was often skewed to get the result it wanted. And I’m quite sure that it did not differ from any other large municipal authority of the time.

A better response but little movement

A fuller response to Campbell’s letter arrived on the 16th September. In it Hawksley defended his idea that cemeteries were depressing places but went on to say,

Its interesting to see that the original plans that the Council had for the site did not include giving such plants mentioned above free rein and ‘dominance’. Those three species, the ‘usual suspects’ of sycamores, brambles and ivy are still there. Thriving. Sadly many of the other species and, of course, many of the monuments are not. That didn’t work out quite as planned did it?

The cheque’s in the post

The Hull Daily Mail of the 30th September reported the news. ‘Tidy Up Grant for Cemetery’ was the headline and a few days later, on the 13th October, it reported that the final figure granted was £64,000.

But hang on, didn’t I see something in an earlier edition of the newspaper that work had already started?

That’s true. As soon as news that the grant had been secured on the 30th September work began on site. Even the normally servile Hull Daily Mail appeared slightly suspicious using quotation marks around part of the headline. The Council were certainly quick off the mark. Had they reached the point were they just wanted to get the whole thing over and done with now that they had the money? Let’s face it, it had been one headache after another.

The librarian strikes back

The following day Philip Larkin sent his letter of support for the Cemetery’s survival. He was arguing for a less draconian format than the Council had planned.

Larkin said in his letter,

‘The important thing is, as I see it, that whatever time and money the Council proposes to spend on the cemetery now should be devoted to preserving its character; first, by tidying it up, secondly by restoring and re-positioning all memorials that are not smashed beyond redemption, and thirdly by providing it with an unclimbable wall or fence that will enable it to be locked at night. To remove the graves, the trees or even the undergrowth in an attempt to impose on it a municipal respectability would be a disaster. The place is a natural cathedral, an inimitable blended growth of nature and humanity of over a century, something that no other town could create whatever its resources.’

Unfortunately, the letter landed upon the stolid desk of ‘municipal respectability’; Councillor Harry Woodford, the chair of the Leisure Services Department. Not a poet by nature, and I would suggest unlikely by inclination, to him such entreaties fell on stony ground.

Woodford’s reply was brusque to the point of being insulting.

‘Dear Dr Larkin,

Thank you very much for your letter of the 11^th October, 1977 on the subject of the Spring Bank Cemetery. I am pleased that you have taken the time and trouble to write to me and am very grateful for your interest. I will of course record and note your comments along with all the other letters and comments I have received on this subject.’

If he had written at the end, ‘and don’t call us, we’ll call you’, it couldn’t have been any more blunt in its dismissal.

The objectors had probably managed to get as far as they could go. They had done well in the limited time and with the limited weapons they had. If the site was to be saved from wholescale destruction it all depended upon the site visit of the Leisure Services Committee – under the guidance of its chair, Harry Woodford.

In the immortal words of a later politician, ‘the world has had enough of experts’ and that’s exactly what the councillors of the committee probably thought. No outside experts were needed here. What could possibly go wrong?

The Site Visit

And so we arrive at the day the members of the Leisure Services Committee visited the site. The image at the top of this posting is taken from the Hull Daily Mail of the 27th October. I can name one or two people in the photograph. I’m sure others could probably name more.

The man declaiming in the centre is the Assistant Director of the Leisure Services Department, Mr Tony Hawksley. A thoroughly nice man, at least in my dealings with him as a union rep. He was blessed with a good sense of humour, which always goes a long way with me. Tony had also risen through the ranks from apprentice gardener up to the dizzy heights of No.2 in the department. He fully understood that he implemented the decisions of the Council; he did not make them.

To the extreme left of the scene is Dave Wilkinson. He was the manager of the Leisure Services western half of the city, into which Hull General Cemetery was about to fall. His view of the site, as he told me at the time, was simple. He would, ‘level the site and grass it all’. I’ve modified this sentence for the faint hearted. Dave, too, had risen through ranks. He knew the score and what was expected of him.

As you can imagine, a plain speaking man. He once vaguely complimented me. In some tense negotiation I once said to him that the workforce weren’t happy with something or other, and changes needed to be made, otherwise there may be some disruption. He leant back in his chair, fixed me with his gimlet stare and said, ‘Pete, your members are behind you like Scotch mist. They’ll disappear once the sun comes out. You’re a bright lad, don’t waste your time bluffing me. Now let’s get on.’

He was right of course, about the Scotch mist part. I learnt that later, in another dispute but that’s another story. He may have been right about the ‘bright lad’ bit too, but it’s too early to tell yet. I’m only into my seventieth decade, but I’ll keep you posted. O.K.?

The Chairman

To the right of Tony Hawksley is a short and stout man. This is Councillor Harry Woodford. The archetype of the gruff, self-made man who won’t tolerate any nonsense. He could have been created as a character in any of J.B Priestley’s work. Whenever I saw him the phrase, ‘Where there’s muck there’s brass’ sprang into my mind. He would probably have fitted in to the Victorian period better than the modern day, but an effective politician nonetheless.

Peeking out from behind Hawksley, is, if my memory recalls, Councillor Nellie Stephenson. I may be wrong here as I had little to do with this lady. I only met her once and that was well over 40 years ago.

Who’s the person in the nice suit and tie? He’s standing just behind Woodford and staring intently, if not murderously, at Hawksley? Why it’s a young man you may have heard of before. His name was Chris Ketchell.

What petition?

Prior to this photograph being taken Woodford was presented with a petition. The petition’s aim was simple. It wanted to restore the site as sensitively as possible with no removal of the headstones. It had been started in the August and now, two months later, had garnered over 5,000 signatures. A far cry from the survey undertaken by the Council.

So the site visit went ahead. The councillors ‘investigated’ the issue.

Well, as much as they felt they had to. The result of this investigative trip was a foregone conclusion, as evidenced by the press release the next day.

The plan to remove the majority of the headstones was to go ahead. However the question what the term ‘majority’ meant had come a long way. Without the campaign that was waged, it would have been more destruction. Of that there is no doubt.

Today, there are now just over 1,000 of the original 5,000 headstones and monuments left on the site. 80% lost. A sad indictment on a council department more used to handling bowling greens and swimming pools than history. On the plus side we still have 20%, and for that we must thank Donald Campbell, John Netherwood, Par Gustafsson, Chris Ketchell, John Rumsby and many others.

Look on my Works, Ye Mighty, and Despair!

We are left now with the consequences of that short sighted action by the Council almost half a century ago. Long gone are the ‘lawned areas’. Nor are the ‘sycamores, brambles and ivy’ constrained. Indeed activities constraining such plants are frowned upon in some quarters. Fashions change, and not just in clothing.

So, perhaps it’s time to ask a relevant question. Where now, in Hull General Cemetery, are any elements of the original plan as approved by the Leisure Services Committee that bleak October day back in 1977?

Not much. Some of the planting survives along the northern and southern edges of the site. The benches that were sited were destroyed by fire and vandalism. No litter bins ever appeared. The paths, which I vividly remembering maintaining with dumper loads of gravel, are now quagmires at this time of year. The lawned areas, once favoured spots for families to picnic and play, are now covered with brambles, ivy or cow parsley. The proliferation of sycamore and ash saplings is probably at the level it was prior to the clearance in the seventies. I would guess so is the ivy. I do not remember in the past, and the site has been in my personal past for a very long time, the ivy being so strongly wedded to some trees that it brought them down, but it does now.

Surprisingly, the most constant factors that the original plan featured, are the mature trees and the headstones. Ironically, it was some of those things that the original plan wanted to remove. I suppose it just goes to show that there’s still life in the Hull General Cemetery. If you know what I mean.

Protect and survive

It’s at times like this that the desire to have a time machine grows. I would love to whisk the Leisure Services Committee from their site meeting back in 1977 to today and show them the site now. I think I would enjoy it, but I don’t think they would. Knowing them, they would probably be thinking, ‘we could have used that £60k on something else if this is what we ended up with.’

But I don’t have a time machine, so it’s only us today who can harbour regrets about what happened all those years ago. The clock can’t be turned back; we cannot rescue what we’ve lost. What we can do though is conserve and protect what we have left. Surely we owe that to the people who took on the Council back in the seventies.

As Donald Campbell said in his letter, ‘We owe it to future generations not to destroy the magic’. My children enjoyed the ‘magic’ of the site as they grew up, and my grandchildren are doing that too. And sometimes, when I’m in there, I can still feel a little bit of that ‘magic’ rub off on this tired old man.

So yes I think it’s something worth fighting to preserve. What do you think?

I wrote an article six years ago about the events leading up to the founding of Hull General Cemetery. In it I quoted words from Joni Mitchell’s Big Yellow Taxi. ‘You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone’. We lost something back in 1977. What we have left is neither the ‘dream plan’ that the Council of that time envisaged, nor is it what was destroyed. Like many compromises it just feels a bit ‘second best’. What a shame.

Postscript

I was leaving this story with the sentence above. However, a chance find by the volunteers yesterday, February 27th, prompted me to add this part. The volunteers had found a part of a headstone. A small part with just enough letters remaining so that Bill Longbone could identify who it had belonged to. It was a fragment of what must have been a larger headstone. It wasn’t found in the Monumental Inscriptions books that the East Yorkshire Family History Society produced. It was a ‘lost’ stone for a ‘lost ‘ family.

Now this remnant and indeed quite a few other headstones have been found by the volunteers recently. None of them were recorded. Anywhere. Let me explain how that happened.

You may remember that the inscriptions on the headstones would be recorded. The Council told the Consistory Court that is what they would do. Indeed they advertised for recorders to come forward. Chris Ketchell was turned down when he applied..

Throughout the turbulent period discussed above, the main thrust of the Council’s argument with regard to the headstones was that this recording would happen. Nothing would be lost in terms of information even if the monuments themselves would be. A devil’s bargain. The historic value would be diminished but not lost forever.

We left the Leisure Services Committee in October 1977, having had their perfunctory site meeting, telling the press that they were to go ahead with their plans.

On the 12th November Donald Campbell received an anxious letter from John Rumsby. John had been given the task of co-ordinating the recording of the inscriptions of the headstones. Just a fortnight after the site meeting things weren’t going to plan.

Donald Campbell, replying on the 16th, summed up his, and probably many others, feelings for the whole sorry mess that was now the Hull General Cemetery project.

At the first hurdle, the promise the Council had made in the Court and at public and personal meetings was dead. Adhering to a timetable that they themselves had imposed upon the DOE grant, yet failing to actual quantify the work to be done the Council were reneging on their part of this devil’s bargain. If they had planned it properly as they were advised to do so, to tread sensitively; ah, but that would have meant waiting. The Council were not going to do that.

As they had been told by many others, the work to ‘clear’ the cemetery was huge, if done properly. The thought that should have gone into this project was lacking from the start. And as such there was a period of about six months were vandalism took place. Yet under the banner of Hull City Council.

Men with sledge hammers in their hands hit the stones. Crowbars levered them over to break upon hitting the ground. Tractors, with their blades, levered them up and dumped them into waiting lorries. The lorries then ferried these historic pieces of art to parts of the city that needed hard core for other ‘developments’. I was there; that’s what happened. And if those stones had been recorded or not wasn’t the responsibility of those workmen. That blame lay much further up the chain of command.

So that’s why some parts of headstones turn up and they are not listed anywhere. Because the Council didn’t keep to their part of the bargain. In not doing so, they let part of this city’s heritage slip through their fingers. Irreplaceable and gone forever. As I said earlier, what a shame.

Thanks

I hope you enjoyed this short history of a sad mistake. I’m indebted to Liz Shepherd and the Carnegie Trust for access to some of these documents. The collection of material is available to research at the Trust’s site in the Carnegie building on Anlaby Road.

I must say a word of thanks to Chris Ketchell. His earnest clipping of many of these newspaper articles was a work of selflessness and dedication. A thoroughly nice man. He is sadly missed.

The Victorian Celebration of Death by James Stevens Curl, (2000), is available at all good book shops, probably in a newer revised edition than the one I have. I do recommend it.

Mortal Remains; The History and Present State of the Victorian and Edwardian Cemetery by Chris Brooks, (1989) is long out of print but it also includes a quite refreshing and bracing tirade on the stupidity of Hull City Council in its ‘development’ of Hull General Cemetery.

With the rise of genealogical and heritage ‘tourism’ one can’t help but feel that the Hull City Council of that period was terribly short sighted with regard to many things, not just Hull General Cemetery. That’s why we need to care for what we have left. Let’s try to be far-sighted. It’s much better in the long run.

Pete Lowden

Pete Lowden is a member of the Friends of Hull General Cemetery committee which is committed to reclaiming the cemetery and returning it back to a community resource.

petelowden.co.uk

An Anniversary

March 1, 2021February 22, 2021 by Pete Lowdenin Events, General, History1 Comment

7th March 1901

This month’s anniversary is perhaps the first indication that the Cemetery’s position and land was becoming more of an asset than their role as a cemetery. The image is taken from minutes of the 55th Annual General Meeting. This was held at the Grosvenor Hotel, one Thursday evening on the 7th of March, 1901. It records that one of the directors of the Company raised an issue. James Oldham was one of the original shareholders of the Cemetery. At this meeting he floated, for the very first time, that perhaps the Company should consider thinking about selling their Princes Avenue frontage.

Interestingly, James Oldham, had come to this idea, as he said, by recognizing the urbanisation of the Avenues area. He said how the area needed servicing with shops. By 1901, when this comment was made, the construction of the Dukeries area was well underway. The the eastern ends of Marlborough, Westbourne and Park Avenues were also under development.

The end result of this thought bore fruit some six years later. Part of the frontage was sold for the construction of the row of three storey shops that still stands today. This transaction gave a welcome cash boost to the Company’s finances. Unfortunately that was rapidly squandered with an extra-ordinary dividend distributed to the shareholders. Just one more mistake in a sad catalogue of them made by the Company.

Pete Lowden

Pete Lowden is a member of the Friends of Hull General Cemetery committee which is committed to reclaiming the cemetery and returning it back to a community resource.

petelowden.co.uk

13th January 1942

January 20, 2021January 21, 2021 by Pete Lowdenin Events, General, History1 Comment

An anniversary

The 13th January 1942 was the 79th anniversary of an act of destruction that we could not conceive of happening today.

A Board meeting for the Company took place in the Cemetery Lodge on the 13th January 1942. Michael Kelly, superintendent and director, informed the other directors of a decision he had taken. This decision was understandable at the time but for later historians of the HGC it was disastrous and tragic.

Below is a photograph from Bill Longbone’s family album of Michael Kelly, his wife and one of his daughters standing outside the rear of the renovated Hull General Cemetery Lodge. The renovation took place in 1906/7 which dates the photograph reasonably well. You may notice that the Lodge does not have its turret at the front of the building which was taken down during the widening of the entrance to Princes Avenue.

Kelly’s actions

At this board meeting Kelly said that, ‘responding to the appeal from the Government for waste paper for War needs’, he had collected various documents dating back to the founding of the Cemetery and taken them to the collection point run by Hull Corporation. In other words he was recycling historic documents for the war effort.

The documents he collected for disposal can be seen in this entry from the Minute Books.

The old journals and all of the ledgers lost. I could weep. Lost for what? To make paper for forms in triplicate for the use of various government departments. Sacrilege.

I think I may be a bit biased here but this ranks with the destruction of the Library of Alexandria to me. Another black mark against Churchill. Not only the iron railings that decorated the city but also the history of the Cemetery. All gone by his decrees. Words simply fail me. And that doesn’t happen often.

Pete Lowden

Pete Lowden is a member of the Friends of Hull General Cemetery committee which is committed to reclaiming the cemetery and returning it back to a community resource.

petelowden.co.uk

Nature and heritage

January 20, 2021 by Pete Lowdenin General, History, Volunteers, Wildlife2 Comments

This is the third and final article of the series that is loosely following the same theme. The theme is related to nature, and heritage, the concept of rewilding and the protection of the site. This section deals with the graves, and indeed, the bodies laid to rest in there.

This whole series was prompted by what I saw as the unfair criticism of the work that the volunteers had been doing in HGC. The argument has been made that the work has destroyed habitats of the wildlife in the site.

Hmmm, well, I would suggest that one loss of some habitat for one species is the creation of a habitat for another species. And of course, it’s arguable whether any habitat was destroyed. The work that appears to have ‘destroyed’ this habitat is obviously not of a permanent nature. Anyone who has ever tried to remove blackberry bushes from a garden or an allotment will know too well that they cling to life. The site may look bare but check back in the spring, that will be an entirely different story.

Bodies and graves

Now I would suggest that the natural aspect of the site is important. Unfortunately, it appears to me that perhaps too much emphasis upon this feature is to the detriment of the graves and bodies in there. In my view this approach is to weaken the protection of the site.

Without the presence of the bodies and graves lying within the site, I would argue that every habitat of every creature on the site would have gone a long time ago.

The graves and their inhabitants are often seen as also-rans in terms of importance in the site. Here’s why they are one of the most important reasons why the site was never built on or used in any other way.

Sanctuary

As Charles Laughton would have shouted from the tower of Notre Dame Cathedral in the movie, ‘The Hunchback of Notre Dame’. Surprisingly, the presence of the dead in HGC offers a similar protection to the site from developers. Not a fool proof one as we’ll see later.

Let’s face it, HGC is a good site for development. I can see the brochure now.

“Here’s your chance to buy on the new development of Necropolis Gardens. In the sought after Avenues / Princes Avenue area. Close to a good public school and a good primary Academy.

Excellent public transport links, only 10 minutes from the city centre. Close to the bars and cafes of the Princes Avenue area and a stone’s throw from two large municipal parks and the KCOM stadium.

Come and see the detached show house on Cholera Close and marvel at how we can fit 4 bedrooms (only 2 of which can accommodate a bed) into such a small space. Complete with integral garage.

Pick your own plot soon”.

I think I’m probably under-selling it.

Yes, I am having some fun here but behind it I am deadly serious. It is a good site. It does offer great potential for a serious investor with deep pockets. Especially to a local council who, as reported in the previous posts, has lost 50% of its funding over the last decade. If that investor undertook to take on the necessary legal expenses to ‘develop’ the site, undertook to pay a decent rate for the site, and then proceeded to build ‘executive’ houses on the site, I’m pretty certain that the developer would make a decent profit. The council, for its part, would get a site off their hands that they have no budget for and, apart from some woolly idea about a proposed nature reserve, have no plans for.

Enon Chapel

It wouldn’t be the first time that profit has overtaken reverence for the dead. The image above is that of Enon Chapel in London. Notorious for the disposal of the dead entrusted to the minister there. He provided a cheaper burial than the nearby burial grounds and thus attracted considerable customers. He was only caught in this practice because a new sewer was to be dug beneath the building.

As Catherine Arnold, in ‘Necropolis’ recounts, the minister, ‘had succeeded in burying around 12,000 bodies into a space measuring 59 foot by 12 foot’ (1) The depth was 6 foot. Some bodies were removed but the rest were allowed to remain in their basement graves.

The chapel site is now the site of the LSE and when it was being modernised in 1967 skeletons were still being unearthed. The chapel later became a place of pleasure, and dancing parties were organised for a sect of tee-totallers, who rented the property for this purpose. Locally they were known as ‘Dances with the Dead’. A far cry from the way we are led to believe the Victorians revered the sanctity of death.

But back at HGC, as I see it, the major reason these savvy developers haven’t moved in to ‘develop’ HGC is the presence of the dear departed dead. Definitely not because it is a place of natural beauty, home to birds, bats, foxes and other creatures. The presence of such creatures didn’t deter Trump from extending his Scottish golf course on to a site of Special Scientific Interest. The presence of ancient woodland (not the young stuff in HGC) and the creatures living there has not stopped HS2 from bulldozing its way through it.

No, as The Sun (yes, that one) would probably put it, “It’s the bodies that won it”. But let’s not get too carried away.

Progress

There are so many lessons we should heed from our own local history never mind London’s Enon Chapel. The sanctity of burial does not stand in the way of ‘progress’, nor it must be said, has it ever done.

Human remains were found during the digging of the Junction Dock, now Princes Dock, in 1827.

When development work took place in Whitefriargate, at around the same time, the discovery of skeletons did not hinder the completion of the work. The skeletons, presumably buried in what would have been the Carmelite Priory’s burial area that had stood on the site, were simply removed.

The above extract is taken from The Sun ( no, not that one) of the 7th August 1829. The extract below is from the Hull Packet of the 9th of the same month and year.

According to the Hull Advertiser, 12 skeletons were eventually unearthed. The skeletons were later reburied in St Charles’ crypt.

There is no evidence that the bodies that were buried in the western half of St Mary’s churchyard, now under Lowgate, were ever relocated when the street was laid out. They may well still be under the tarmac and pavement of this road.

The bodies that were buried in the Augustinian priory, where the Magistrates’ Court now stands, must have been continually disturbed by the building work that took place on that site during the 400 years after the priory’s dissolution. It was known that bodies were buried on this site as one was found there in the 19th century. The Hull Advertiser, in one instance, recorded the discovery of a skeleton under the cellars of the Cross Keys Inn in 1819.

It took until 1974 and work by archaeologists to give the buried of this site some respect and reburial.

When Beverley Railway Station was being built in 1846 a number of bodies were discovered. It was thought that these too were burials related to the local Friary in Beverley just a little to the south.

Drains and sewers

Drainage work appears to have been the major culprit in finding human remains in 19th century Hull as it expanded beyond the old walls.

In 1848 at the corner of Chariot Street and Carr Lane a discovery of human remains was made.

A mere 8 months later, in March 1849, a similar discovery in Spring Street was reported.

And close by, in the August of 1856, a more interesting discovery took place.

So, taking all of the above into account, I’m pretty sure that non-discovered human remains from the earlier periods of history are pretty common in our area, it’s just knowing where to look ….or not as the case may be. The conclusion that can be drawn from these extracts is that the burials of the past did not stop ‘progress’

More recently

Let’s look at more recent developments.

These images are of St Mary’s church yard, or as it’s commonly called now, Air Street cemetery. It is one of the oldest burial places in Hull although it started its life in Sculcoates. It dates back to the mid-13th century. Older than The Minster’s churchyard and also St Mary’s in Lowgate. Its only rival in age is probably St Peter’s, Drypool. Burials have been discontinued here since 1855 although in truth the only burials after 1818 would have been in tombs and vaults already existing.

It’s not great in terms of area, probably about a third of an acre in total. The church that stood on the site was taken down in 1916. The new one was consecrated in the June of that year a little further away, on a site Sculcoates Lane. For a long time the church tower was left standing forlornly until final demolition in the early 1960s.

What is not commonly known is that Hull City Council received enquiries about using this site for industrial purposes. The Council, after the war, and obviously wanting to boost local industry, encouraged this interest as can be seen by this letter.

I’m sure you’ll be glad to know that the Church Commissioners and the Diocese of York were opposed to such a move and the scheme went into abeyance. The costs would probably have been prohibitive to the Council at that time. However, if a developer dipped their hands into their pockets in the future….well, who knows?

Earlier this millennium archaeologists were busy again. The churchyard, now known as Trinity Square, which in past times reached as far as King Street, was excavated by the Humberside Archaeology Unit in 2017. There were a number of bodies discovered, complete with coffin remains, most of them from the late 18th century.

It’s interesting, if a little morbid, to think that perhaps the patrons of Bob Carver’s stall were eating their fish and chips over the remains of their ancestors. The churchyard of Holy Trinity was cleared and paved over in the 1840s but obviously the clearance was not very thorough.

Bodies were also found during the development of the St Stephen’s Centre. These were the remains that had failed to be removed when the St Stephen’s churchyard was cleared after the bombed church was removed in 1960.

And how can anyone fail to notice that the Castle Street cemetery is suffering a truncation, which includes the removal of human remains? Evidence surely that the presence of human bodies does not give complete protection to sites when there is deemed to be a need for change. Or do I mean ‘progress’?

HGC is safe though, isn’t it?

I’d like to think so. After all it is in a conservation area. Strangely, so is Castle Street cemetery. Am I just splitting hairs by putting that in?

Hymers College is in the same conservation area that HGC is in, yet there has been a plethora of new buildings erected in its grounds since the conservation area status was granted. Yes, I’m sure, in this case, that everything is above board and the Council granted permission for this work. The point I’m making is that Conservation Area status does not exclude changes that the site owner deems necessary.

A conservation area does not confer immunity either. In much the same way that having a building or structure ‘listed’ does not stop it from being destroyed. We’ve all seen examples where some building was listed with one or other of the various bodies that supposedly care for such things. Then, whoops, it has ‘inadvertently’ been reduced to rubble. To paraphrase myself from an earlier article, ‘nothing lasts, change is constant.’

In other words, nothing is really certain about the future of the HGC. Let me give you an example.

Dual carriageway

Back in 1977 we bought our first house. It was a small terraced house in Mayfield Street, just off Spring Bank. We had some difficulties in buying it. This was due to the fact that when our solicitor did some searches on the property it was deemed to be at risk of demolition. This demolition was going to take place because an orbital road was planned. A dual carriageway was proposed, running along the old Hornsea railway line until it reached Wincolmlee. This road would have demolished most of Louis Street, Middleton Street and Mayfield Street. The top of Mayfield Street is to the left of the photograph below.

At the other end it would have joined onto Spring Bank West leading up towards the railway line crossing. This stretch would have been ‘upgraded’. This upgrade would have been transforming the road as it is into a dual carriageway. Now how could that happen?

Simple, the plan was that a part of both of the cemeteries, HGC and Western, would have been taken for this road widening. As one letter writer to the Hull Daily Mail put it,

By late 1979, this idea had been shelved. But this doesn’t mean that this idea cannot ever be resurrected. If someone, say Highways England, came up with the money, as they did with the Castle Street development, who can say what would happen?

Council dual purpose in clearing headstones?

The other issue that needs to be borne in mind here is that the idea was actually brought to the then Humberside County Council and they deliberated on it. This was a definite project. Surveys were made, budgets were calculated. This project would have taken all of the pavement and at least another 50 yard strip of both cemeteries from the railway crossing to Princes Avenue corner. This plan would not only widen the road but would then have to replace the pavement further back. I’m not even taking into account the excavation work for the sewerage, gulleys and drainage.

What a dismal prospect. It was discussed, debated and voted upon by Humberside County Council. What is hopefully coincidental is that this proposal occurred whilst Hull City Council were ‘developing’ HGC. Strangely almost all of the headstones that once stood close to the road were removed in the clearance. That would have been extremely helpful if the road widening took place. Yes, I’m sure it was a coincidence but sometimes you do have to wonder.

Firstly; the woodland

So, now I come to the grist of these articles. I’ve come to believe that HGC is precious. In essence it is a one-off in Hull in two ways.

Firstly, it is the closest one can get to a woodland in an urban setting. Unplanned by humans for the last 40 years it has happened as nature intended. Nature abhors a vacuum as they say. This isn’t to say that nature doesn’t need a helping hand.

Left to its own devices the site would be a wilderness with no place for humans. And by that I mean that humans would not be able to enter it after a while. The paths would be impassable. The blackberry thickets would grow bigger every passing day, the rubbish would accumulate just as if by osmosis.

No, not a pretty sight. I believe that all such areas need managing. There are no areas of countryside that are not managed to a greater or lesser degree to meet the needs of the owner, consumer or visitor. And this management also assists the site and its wildlife inhabitants.

I’m pretty concerned when I hear people arguing against management of HGC. I’m sorry but we’ve seen where over 10 years of the policy of ‘managed neglect’ delivered HGC. A haunt for drug users, alcoholics and rough sleepers. A sex playground / brothel, rubbish dump and sometimes, sadly, a serious crime scene. When people talk about ‘wildlife’ I’m pretty certain they don’t mean that kind of wildlife. So management is key.

Secondly; the heritage

Secondly, it is the only private cemetery that ever existed in Hull. On that basis alone it is precious and irreplaceable. It is the last resting place of numerous Victorian and Edwardian people who died and were laid to rest in there. It is a vivid representation of the social class structures that prevailed in Victorian society The class divisions of that society are frozen in time and made more tangible to us than any textbook could ever do. Those divisions are laid bare by such things as the burial area for the workhouse inhabitants and the massive monuments to the more privileged inhabitants. But this heritage needs as much protection as the nature in there.

Below is a photograph of some headstones in HGC completely covered in ivy, which is systematically destroying them.

Here’s a headstone with the ivy removed and showing the damage done to the stone.

Some of the people buried in there wanted to be remembered, or perhaps their relatives wanted to memorialise them. In doing so they had erected some beautiful sculptures. Those sculptures are irreplaceable. More irreplaceable than blackberry bushes and sycamore saplings.

They are, like the cemetery itself, original and special, and as such also need our support. In fact they need it just as much as the wildlife.

A middle way

Taking all of the above into account, I would suggest that a middle course is the way forward. A way that does not put forward the claim that nature is more important than the heritage or vice versa. Both strands and elements of HGC are vital to each other’s self interest. Together the arguments against the site ever being lost to development are that much stronger combining nature and heritage. It really is a case of united we stand, divided we fall.

So perhaps, on this point, we should place the work of the FOHGC in context. The FOHGC attempts to take on board both of the two elements mentioned above, and works to accommodate both of them. It doesn’t favour one or other. It takes the hard road and seeks a balance between nature and heritage.

Try to remember that when you want to have a little moan about something that offends you. It just might be something that offends some of the people of the FOHGC but that’s the way it goes. The FOHGC have to try to get the balance between nature and heritage right. No one said getting that particular balance right is easy. No, what’s easy is criticising; the hard part is trying to do something positive.

Catherine Arnold, Necropolis. Simon and Schuster, 2006. I do recommend this book as a good overview of burial through the ages. It obviously has a tendency to look at London more than anywhere else.
It would be immodest of me to mention that A Short History of Burial in Kingston Upon Hull from the Medieval to the Late Victorian Period by Lowden and Longbone deals with the subject more locally. Sadly out of print but copies are in the Hull History Centre.

Pete Lowden

Pete Lowden is a member of the Friends of Hull General Cemetery committee which is committed to reclaiming the cemetery and returning it back to a community resource.

petelowden.co.uk

Rewilding

January 7, 2021 by Pete Lowdenin General, History, Wildlife1 Comment

This article follows on from the Nature v Nurture one. It involves the concept of rewilding and especially the rewilding of HGC. If you’ve read the previous article you’ll know that Bill Longbone and myself were congratulated by a young man on our efforts to tidy the cemetery of litter. He then said he supported rewilding of the HGC and then left us, leaving us both somewhat bemused. Were we doing that?

Neither of us were 100% certain that picking up the detritus of others was actually ‘rewilding’ except in its loosest sense. We both shrugged and carried on.

I’m also very sorry that this article is a bit technical and bolstered by footnotes and cited evidence. Unfortunately evidence must be used here as without it people make ludicrous claims without the slightest shred of evidence. For example ‘rewilding’.

History is bunk

I was thinking about the idea of the rewilding of HGC much later. Quite some time after I had met this young man. I thought how far fetched the concept of doing such a thing to the HGC site was. And this is where the historical aspect that I mentioned in the previous article comes to the fore.

I suppose I should say here what my problem with his statement was. I’m pretty sure that the young man’s idea of ‘rewilding’ went something like this. HGC is a cemetery but has been allowed to become a woodland. This should be encouraged by more trees being allowed to grow. If more trees grow the site becomes ‘wilder’ and therefore it encourages more wildlife.

Simple isn’t it?

Its a nice simple plan. I think I’ve addressed the problems you can have with simple plans in the previous article but I’m pretty sure that was the sum of his idea about ‘rewilding’ of HGC. So foresting is the way to go. The more trees grown on the site will return the site to its pristine state before it became a cemetery. Great, let’s do it.

Well, its not quite that simple. Let’s have a closer look.

I’m pretty sure that most people who read stuff on this site have an interest in history. That interest may be small or large depending on the individual but it will be there. So what I’m going to say may be well known to some but not to others. For you antiquarian experts please be patient and let others catch up.

Fresh water

The history of Hull was shaped by many factors. Not least of them was the search for fresh water. Charles 1st laid siege to Hull in 1642 at the beginning of the Civil War. He thought that he could, if not starve the inhabitants into surrendering, he could bring them to heel by denying them fresh water. The vast majority of the fresh water that was drunk in Hull at that time came from Anlaby. Charles, in throwing a siege around the town, deliberately interrupted that source. We’ll discuss how this source came about later.

Charles, unfortunately for him, was told that his plan was stupid. Probably not as bluntly as that but just as clearly. Ex-Governor of Hull, Sir Thomas Glenham, said that the people of Hull need only dig down a little way for the hole to fill with fresh water. A little brackish, yes, but still drinkable. Charles was also told that at low tide the River Hull was a fresh water source and all the people needed to do was dip their buckets in it. Indeed Glenham went on to say that, ‘they cannot bury a corpse there but the grave drowns him ere it buries him.’ (1) A feature I know too well from past experience.

So, when it came to emergencies, like being under siege, the citizens of Hull could get by on the fresh(ish) water on site. However, when the choice was between fresh spring water and the brackish water, well, that was a different matter entirely.

Water courses

Wyke, later to become Kingston upon Hull, had a fresh water source about two miles to the west. This was at Springhead, known then as Julian Wells. This spring, followed a natural path to the emerging town. This water course was first recorded in 1293, some six years before the town of Hull was graced with attention from Edward 1st.(2) The spring was said to follow a circuitous course eventually reaching the town at what is now the end of Whitefriargate.

As can be seen from the above sketch map, made by Hull historian J. Travis-Cook in 1903, the ditch ranges from the top left of the map until eventually emptying into the ancient moat.

Eventually, after many tribulations, the course of this spring was fixed in 1401 and a ditch was dug to a depth of five feet, five feet wide at its bottom and twelve feet wide at the top.(3)

Julian Dyke

This water course, known as the Julian Dyke, later Derringham Dyke, and later still Spring Ditch, emerged at Springhead. It then followed the course of the present day Spring Bank West, Spring Bank and Prospect Street. The dyke eventually flowed into a basin called the Bush Dyke. This was approximately where Prince’s Dock and the old Queen’s Dock would have met. This was the first primitive reservoir for the town and Bush-Dyke men went around the town selling fresh water from barrels that they carried.

Of interest in the above map, taken from Sheppard’s ‘The Draining of the Hull Valley’, is the line of higher ground. Cottingham, along the line of Castle Hill to Keldgate was probably the nearest high ground above the flooding of the River Humber. In fact, if you bother to stop at Keldgate today and look south, you can see the entire southern Hull valley, now occupied by a large city. A thousand years ago it would have been a marshland with reeds and the odd misshapen tree as the tallest structures in it.

Farming

So, why am I telling you all this in the context of rewilding?

Because of a very simple reason. The presence of managed water courses, and the Julian Dyke was managed very thoroughly and efficiently by the Court of Sewers, suggests, that the land on either side of it was constantly being drained. In a predominantly wet landscape, a drained portion of land would not have been left long before humanity took advantage of it.

Farming would have been the role for the land that eventually became Hull General Cemetery, from the medieval period, up to 1846. Prior to its change to farmland it would have been marshland, used for pasturing in summer, and fishing and trapping in the winter. Due to its nature its highly unlikely that there were many trees in it. The consensus of opinion is that, after the last ice age, trees were initially abundant, but by 1000 BCE the forest coverage had been much reduced. This reduction has continued up to the present day.(4)

Evidence

The evidence all suggests that the site of the present HGC was firstly marshland up until it was drained sometime in the 13th and 14th century. After that it was farmland. It continued to be farmland until taken over by the Hull General Cemetery Company in 1846. It was at that time that forest trees were planted on the site. These were probably the first on the site since before Roman times.

The Company planted a lot of trees and shrubs. After it’s downfall those trees and shrubs best suited to proliferate without maintenance began to predominate. Thus we have the site as it is today. An urban woodland. That’s good.

Finally

Yes, I can hear your sigh of relief from here.

What the present state of the HGC is not is a return to how it ever was. Especially in the idealised past that the term ‘rewilding’ used here conjures up. It’s present state is not some happy chance that has returned it to its roots (pun intended). It is man-made.

If we want a true rewilding of HGC then we should destroy the site’s drainage system. The Company dug this system 14 foot beneath the site’s surface back in 1846. We should destroy the woodland. We should eradicate the present woodland wildlife. After that we can re-wild the site back to its marshy status. Imagine the clumps of solid earth infrequently poking above a wet landscape populated by wading birds.

Lots of luck with that. If you don’t mind I’ll sit this one out thanks.

Notes

1 p.2, Mary Fowler, “River and Spring“, 1997

2. p.42, E.Aylwin & R.C.Ward, “Development and Utilisation of Water Supplies in the East Riding of Yorkshire.“, 1969

3. p.42-3, Edward Gillett & Kenneth A. MacMahon, “A History of Hull“, 1980. If you’d like to know all about the ‘tribulations’ mentioned above, one of which included the Pope becoming involved, may I recommend the three books cited and also “The Victoria History of the County of York, East Riding, Volume 1“, Ed. K.J.Allison, “Hull; Culture, History, Place“, Eds. Starkey, Atkinson, McDonough, McKeon & Salter, “Yorkshire from AD1000“, D. Hey, “General and Concise History and Description of the Town and Port of Kingston-Upon-Hull“, J.J.Sheahan, “ Becks, Banks, Drains and Brains“, The River Hull Valley Drainage Heritage Group, 2013 and of course the wonderful EYLHS booklets by June Sheppard, “The Draining of the Marshlands of South Holderness and the Vale of York” & “The Draining of the Hull Valley“. 1966 and 1958 respectively.

4. Numerous sources. pp-6-7, Eva Crackles, “The Flora of the East Riding“, 1990 states that the forest coverage was at its maximum ‘some 7000 to 5000 years ago’.

The River Hull Drainage Heritage Group, already cited, states on p.8, ‘This meant that spring fed right bank tributaries originating on the Chalk Wolds to the west of the pre-glacial cliff line all flowed out across low-lying carrs and ings to reach the River Hull (….) This landscape chaos was what the Norman conquerors beheld as they secured their conquest in the 11th century A.D. This was a tract of land to skirt, unless your business was wild-fowling or fishing.’

J.R. Flenley in ‘Vegetational History’ in “Humber Perspectives: A Region Through the Ages“, 1990, states that around 1000 BCE, Elms began to decrease, possibly due to a variant of the recent Dutch Elm Disease but more probably due to humanity chopping the young growth to feed livestock. He also states that, in the iron age, with the stronger plough, ‘The resulting clearance of forest in Holderness is beautifully demonstrated by the Roos Pollen count again suggesting mixed farming’.p.51. There are other accounts to validate this evidence. In essence forest land in the Hull valley from, at the very latest, the Roman period, was quite rare.

Pete Lowden

Pete Lowden is a member of the Friends of Hull General Cemetery committee which is committed to reclaiming the cemetery and returning it back to a community resource.

petelowden.co.uk

An Anniversary

December 31, 2020January 6, 2021 by Pete Lowdenin History1 Comment

Enter Mr. Edward Nequest

On the 31st December 1866 the post of Superintendent of the Cemetery was offered to Mister Edward Nequest. Today is the 154th anniversary of that happening. In early November the previous superintendent John Shields died. John Shields had laid out the cemetery; its paths, its compartments and had arranged the planting of the cemetery’s trees and shrubs. He, with Cuthbert Brodrick, located the site where the chapel was to be placed and he was the first occupant of the Cemetery Lodge.

His death was sudden and the Company needed to act quickly. Luckily for them they had someone close at hand. Edward Nequest had been the clerk to John Shields for a number of years. He knew the business and could take on the role. He applied for the post.

As the minute books show, ‘The necessity of filling up the vacancy occasioned by Mr.Shield’s death having been discussed and an application for the office received from Mr Nequest having been considered,’

Of course the Company also saw this as a perfect time to amalgamate the post of superintendent and secretary. Another short-sighted cost cutting exercise that antagonised the present solicitor who was holding the post of secretary. His name was Charles Spilman Todd, later to be become a councillor and the secretary to the Local Board of Health, the cemetery’s municipal competitor. That story is for another time though.

Pete Lowden

Pete Lowden is a member of the Friends of Hull General Cemetery committee which is committed to reclaiming the cemetery and returning it back to a community resource.

petelowden.co.uk