Volunteers Archives - Page 3 of 10 - Friends Of Hull General Cemetery

Anniversary June 1972

May 23, 2022May 30, 2022 by Pete Lowdenin General, History, Volunteers

The anniversary this month is poignant. It marks 50 years since the Hull General Cemetery Company dissolved itself. Since that time the site has undergone some changes; some good, some not so good. It has changed ownership for better or worse. The site has been ‘developed’ and then allowed to sink back into the ‘decay’ it had been in before that ‘development’. One could say that Hull General Cemetery has had mixed fortunes since the last meeting of the shareholders of the company took place.

But that was in the future. In June 1972 no one knew what would happen to the site, least of all the Company, and neither did its future owners, Hull City Council. At no time did it seem certain that Hull City Council would become the owners. Although, quietly and behind the scenes, some activity told a different story.

Let’s look at how the Council did take over and this story may take us all back a lot further than you’d think.

To sell or not to sell

On the 14th December 1853 the company received a letter from the clerk to the Local Board of Health. This body had recently been set up in response to the Public Health Act of 1848. Amongst its many duties was the control of burials within its district. It was with this duty in mind that Mr Wells, the clerk, wrote to the Company. Mr Wells said that he had been instructed by the Parliamentary Bill Committee to ask the Company to name their price with regard to selling their cemetery.

This letter on the face of it was straightforward. Basically it asked for the company how much they wanted for selling the site. Underlying that letter though was an implied threat. This threat was that the Parliamentary Bill Committee were, at that moment, steering a bill through Parliament that sought to ‘improve’ the town. Part of that improvement was the right of compulsory purchase of the cemetery. That the letter came from this committee rather than the Local Board of Health itself would not have been lost on the Directors.

It also cannot have slipped the Directors’ minds that the Local Board of Health’s solicitor had written to them in November. This November letter was much less friendlier. It stated that,

The threat of the Local Board of Health (LBOH) to compulsorily purchase the cemetery coupled with the oblique threat of erecting gas works in front of the entrance of the cemetery would have been fresh in their minds.

A more emollient approach

The December letter stated that the LBOH,

‘would be glad to receive from the Company an offer to sell to the local Board of Health for the benefit of the Borough the Hull General Cemetery and all its property rights and interests.’

A reply was requested by the 22nd. The company replied saying that, ‘it was not their present intention of the Company to part with their cemetery.’

The following February 1854 another letter arrived. In this the Parliamentary Bill Committee suggested that three directors should meet three LBOH members with a view to settling this issue. The Company agreed to this and dispatched the Chair, John S. Thompson, William Irving and John Pearson Bell to this meeting.

Suffice to say that both parties attended the meeting with their own agenda. Although there were glimmers of agreement it was not wholly successful for either side. The Company did agree to sell the cemetery to the LBOH but they wanted the LBOH to come up with a price first. However the LBOH did not do this and the matter was not pursued. No doubt the LBOH felt that their Act of Parliament would gain the cemetery for them. They were in for a surprise.

The Acts of Parliament

For the Cemetery Company were also pursuing this approach. It became a race which Act would be enacted first.

As such both parties set to with a will to get their respective Acts of Parliament through the next session of Parliament. By 1854 the Corporation had their Hull Improvement Act in place that would have enabled them to purchase the cemetery. However the Company had managed to get their own Act in place. This forestalled any municipal authority from compulsorily purchasing a cemetery established and incorporated by an Act of Parliament. Stalemate. A couple of years later anther approach almost made it over the finish line but was scuppered by greed. You can read about it here. An Anniversary: June 1856

And so this state of affairs continued for the next 120 years.

Having said that, the fortunes of both parties altered significantly over time. In 1854 the Company was definitely in the driving seat. In effect it could name the conditions upon which it would sell. This was its highwater point. After this the pendulum swung the other way. By the turn of the 20th century the company would have been glad to sell the cemetery but the Corporation now had its own burial grounds and was content to wait.

One hundred years later

By the middle of the 20th century the chair, Arthur J. Downs, a relative of Rose, Downs and Thompson, the engineering firm, was reporting to the Company AGM that negotiations to sell the site to the Corporation were stalling.

‘It was noted that the corporation were insistent that steps be taken to recall capital as a condition to their considering the matter further. As such the matter was not competent business for discussion at an Ordinary General Meeting, it was decided that the new board, when constituted, should take up negotiations and refer back to the proprietors as necessary.’

Recall of Capital

This issue of ‘recall the capital’ refers back to the foundation of the Company. Avid students of this subject will remember that the initial shares in the company were sold for £10. Out of that £10 only £1 of that was asked from the shareholders by the Company. The Company had, from its beginnings, worked on income it generated and initial lending via bonds. As such the original shareholders reaped the benefit of dividends for over a hundred years without actually paying the full price for their shares.

By the time the Company found itself in financial trouble many of the original shareholders had died or their families had moved away. Thus the Company felt it was unfair to trouble the descendants for the remaining £9 owing.

Sadly, the Corporation didn’t view that particular issue in such a misty-eyed way. They demanded that before any purchase of the cemetery this money should be paid into the cemetery coffers. In this way the Corporation felt that they would not have to pay the entire cost of attempting to bring the site back to a healthy state. Upon this rock all future negotiations foundered.

1955

By 1955 two changes had occurred. Firstly a new chair was installed. This was Clifford Hookins Ashburn. A solicitor, like many of his predecessors. As such he perhaps saw more clearly that the present situation could not continue.

The second change was that on the 27th January that year the nettle was grasped. At an Extraordinary Meeting of the proprietors a resolution was put forward. This stated that,

On the face of it this resolution would allow the Company to continue negotiations with the Corporation. However an upset at the meeting changed things.

So the ‘burden’ of paying the £9 owing would not simply be taken up by the remaining proprietors but also by the relatives or descendants of all the shareholders. Some of these people may not have known they were shareholders in the Company. Those old shares could be mouldering in a trunk in the attic or have been lost over the intervening period of a century. It’s doubtful whether any of them had received any dividends over time as addresses would have changed.

This put the Company in an invidious position. They would now need to source where these ‘missing’ proprietors were and that would take money. Something the Company were sadly lacking in.

The offer of a deal

Realising that this task was impossible. the Chair and the Company’s solicitors, Payne and Payne, had, by June 1956, opted for hopefully an easier way. They approached the Corporation to accept £3 10 shillings per share rather than the full £9. The Board thought that this approach at least passed the buck back to the Corporation. The Board felt that it showed their willingness to compromise on the issue and provide a solution.

By January 1957 the Board heard that,

Roscoe’s Report

At a board meeting on the 21st August that year the Directors were informed that the site visit had been undertaken. Mr Roscoe, the Corporation Parks and Burials Superintendent, had visited the site. In researching this article I have not had sight of the report. However what we do have is a resume of the report and the conclusions of the Town Clerk, J Haydon W. Glen. It’s not pretty reading for the Company.

It starts quite positively and then takes a turn for the worst.

It went on to say,

The resume by the Town Clerk was simply saying that the Company had managed to get itself into this mess, was still in business, so should endeavour to get itself out of it. As it says, ‘it may be wondered why the Corporation should get involved in the matter at all.’ And an objective observer would probably agree with them. It needed the Company to fail completely before the site could be rescued.

With that report, the hope that the Company had of the Corporation taking the site over was gone.

1966 and all that

In November 1961 the Company formally recognised this and recorded that they would not approach the Corporation again. The issue resurfaces indirectly in November 1966 when the Company asked for another look at their own counsel’s advice from a decade ago. This advice had been to sell the site quickly as may be seen below,

At the next meeting of the Board on the 27th August 1968 Mr Wilkinson reported back. He said that although the Corporation were not unsympathetic to the Company, they said they themselves did not ‘have the resources to take the initiative in the matter.’ As such the Corporation said the Company ‘must do what it thought fit.‘

The plan

Upon this news the Directors decided to undertake another plan. This was to list the Company under the Companies Act 1948. Taking this approach meant that the Company could apply to the Courts to be liquidated under that Act. The Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the proprietors that would vote on this issue was to take place on the 11th August 1970. The Board were confident it would be approved.

At this meeting 10 proprietors attended, owning 153 shares between them. The chair outlined the situation facing all those present after which the outcome was a foregone conclusion. A resolution was put forward from the floor and it was unanimously accepted.

From now on the liquidation of the Company was simply a matter of when. Over the next 20 months the process of liquidation followed its legal course. By May 1972 everything was in place for the Company to be terminated. And then, at the eleventh hour, an outside intervention occurred.

Mr Dennis

On the 22nd May, at the Law Society Offices, Bowlalley Lane, another EGM took place. In an unconscious ironic twist of fate both this and the final shareholder’s meeting took place in the very building that the first meeting of the Company had taken place in back in 1845. Out of the 967 shareholders known to the Company only seven were present. However those present did own the majority of the Company’s shares between them.

At this meeting in May, Clifford H Ashburn, the chair, invited a Mr Dennis to speak. This young man, a Hull University graduate and now a businessman in a property company, outlined his proposal.

The chair had invited representatives of the local press and radio to this meeting. As such this late intervention was reported in the Hull Daily Mail the following day.

Under the headline ‘Hull Graduates Want To Buy Derelict Cemetery’, Mr Dennis’s scheme was explained. The article went into much more detail than the Company minute books. In essence it’s an intriguing ‘What If…’ aspect of the long history of the cemetery.

Counterfactual

As the historian Hugh Trevor-Roper once said,

‘History is not merely what happened; it is what happened in the context of what might have happened.’

And with the intervention of Mr Dennis we have a perfect opportunity of imagining such a thing in connection with Hull General Cemetery. Could such an intervention have succeeded? What would have been the likely outcome over time?

On the credit side the Cemetery Company was not in debt. It still owned two properties. Yes, these were up for sale but that sale could be withdrawn. On the debit side it had no staff and the site was totally overgrown and shabby. However this last point appeared to be a credit point to the prospective buyers. In effect the site could have been transferred and the new owners have put into place their own plans. As long as the new owners closed the burial side of the business which the Company had already begun to do there would have been no legal objection that could have been sustained by the Council.

What then could have occurred? Mr Dennis said that a fence would be erected around the site. This would have been quite an expense. He also said that certain headstones and memorials would be made safe and restored. Once again this would have been an expensive undertaking. Other than making the paths of the cemetery passable no other work was envisaged. I would suppose that routine maintenance of the trees would have taken place to make sure they would not damage the stones but beyond that the site would be left in situ.

Income generating?

Mr Dennis did not say whether the venture would be income generating. However he was a businessman, even if he had long hair and ‘outlandish’ ideas, so it’s possible there was a germ of an idea to make money from the site. We do not know. However we can hypothesise.

Mr Dennis may well have foreseen that such a site could potentially generate money as a ‘heritage’ resource. We are all familiar with visiting country houses etc but accessing other sites rich in heritage is also viable. Possibly Mr Dennis may have had such an idea that the site could become such an attraction. With the rise of genealogical studies in the 1990s such sites became much more popular. Guided tours of the historic monuments (for a price) could have taken place. Accessing both local and central government funding for environmental and bio-diversity work could have also generated significant income. Another form of income generation could have been leasing it out as a film or television set. One can imagine how this could have been successful.

By the millennium the site could have become a self-sustaining part of the rich fabric of attractive heritage and natural highlights of the city.

Meanwhile back at the meeting, and the press report that followed.

Plastic people

The article began by stating that,

Mr Dennis, the representative of the graduates, stated,

‘that he feared the Hull Corporation would take over the cemetery, and by flattening it out, make it “a ghastly and tasteless plastic graveyard for plastic people.”.

Mr Dennis channelling Frank Zappa there! And of course he wasn’t far wrong in that assessment as a previous article pointed out. A Monumental Loss

Warming to his theme he outlined the plans he and his fellows had for the site,

This was perhaps not what the present owners wanted to hear. They had lamented the state of the cemetery for the best part of 40 years without paying for its restoration. Now, sat in front of them, is this long haired ‘hippie’ saying that he and his fellows preferred this state of affairs and indeed wanted it to continue. One can imagine their consternation at this news.

Under the paragraph heading, ‘Not Crazy’, Mr Dennis further outlined how he would take control of the cemetery,

In the Yorkshire Post Mr Dennis was quoted as saying,

‘I want to buy it because it is a nice place just as it is – as long as it will not cost me too much. You could say I just want it as a garden. Let the place rest in peace whereas if the council got hold of it we would have council officials marching all over it, levelling it out. Many people enjoy looking around it in its present wild state. Let them enjoy the pleasure.’

He also said in the Hull Times that he did not want the Corporation, ‘to take over the cemetery, to make it into a second Queens Gardens.’

Cold water

At the end of the Hull Daily Mail article the chair of the Cemetery Company poured cold water on this plan. He said he did not think it was possible for Blawhurst Limited, of which Mr Dennis was a founder, to buy the cemetery.

‘For one thing it may be too late to do anything now as we are well on the way to having the Company would up. It must be in doubt whether Mr Dennis’s company have enough cash. There are also various legal complication to be considered.’

With that cold assessment we now move on to the endgame of the Cemetery Company and to the final meeting of the Company. However, before we enter that meeting room for the last time, the intervention by Mr Dennis and his associates caused some ripples beyond the room.

The cat is out of the bag

On the 31st May, eight days after this meeting, the Joint Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment (DOE), a Mr Keith Speed, revealed that Hull Corporation had already enquired for a direct grant from his department to ‘tidy up the dilapidated 127- year old cemetery.’

Sir Keith Speed, as he later became, was the minister for the Navy and was sacked by Margaret Thatcher in 1981. He had publicly disagreed with the cuts taking place on the Navy that she and the defence minister John Nott, were imposing. A year later, with the Falklands War, his assessment was proved correct. Naturally enough he was never forgiven by Thatcher and he was only knighted after she had left office. He died in 2018.

This embarrassing revelation for the Corporation came about, probably much to the Corporation’s chagrin, via the West Hull M.P. James Johnson at the time. He had received a letter from the DOE after he complained about the state of the site. So, contrary to past denials and negative pronouncements about the site the Hull Corporation were seeking to acquire it. But they did not want to buy it but ‘inherit’ it.

A clarification – of sorts

Responding to this news, Sir Leo Schultz, the leader of Hull City Council, said, ‘It was impossible at present to say whether the Corporation would step in.’ This statement, made no doubt to cover for the Corporation’s earlier machinations in applying for a DOE grant, continued,

‘There were plots which people had bought in the area but had not taken up, and the public still needed access to graves in the cemetery. The company is still using it as a burial ground, I understand, so we have commitments regarding it. this means we could not take steps to clear it up until the company has totally completed its business.’

The phrase, ‘to clear it up’, perhaps already shows the Corporation’s plans for the site. Ominously Sir Leo Schultz went on to say,

‘That in any case the Spring Bank area was not the only cemetery in the city which was untidy and needed attention. There were old cemeteries such as those near Division Road and Sculcoates Lane which also must be looked at under the clean-up scheme’

And so they were cleared up, with the significant loss of heritage assets such as the headstone of David Garbutt, the man behind the Avenues project, in Division Road. In Sculcoates Lane the destruction of the chapel that Greenwood in 1835 said was a great artistic piece of work was another blow to Hull historical record. ‘Clean-up’, as a phrase used by the Council at this time, surely should have struck fear into any historian.

The final meeting

The final meeting of the Company shareholders took place once again at the Bowlalley Lane site. The date was the 1st of June 1972. At this meeting two resolutions, unanimously agreed by all present were put forward. The first was that, ‘The Hull General Cemetery Company be dissolved.’ and the second stated, ‘That the Hull General Cemetery Company Limited be wound up in Court.‘

The shareholders then had to deal with the intervention by Mr Dennis and his associates. The shareholders had already agreed that they could not countenance this deal. As the minutes show,

It was only after the press were informed of this decision that Mr Dennis was asked to join the meeting. There he was not told that his offer had been rejected. He was asked to explain his offer once again which he did.

What a novel idea

This approach would not have endeared him and his associates to the shareholders. He was saying that the cemetery, as it stood, was fine. That he could continue to run the cemetery as a business but that would not be its main function. Its main function would be as a site of historical and environmental interest. In essence Mr Dennis was stating something that to us today is quite normal but to the ears of the shareholders it was not only novel but dangerous. Indeed Mr Dennis was articulating what the Spring Bank Cemetery Action Group and the Friends of Hull General Cemetery said later. That the combination of both nature and history complimented each other and should be preserved as much as possible. That in it’s present state (in 1972) it was attractive and informative. The shareholders must have thought the young man was mad.

Back at the meeting

Meanwhile back at the meeting,

So the last chance to preserve the beauty of the Cemetery as it was was lost. That the directors stated that Blawhurst Ltd was a ‘company of straw’ is ironic as it is still one of the leading rental property owners in Hull. Once again one wonders what if the directors had gone along with this scheme what would we now have today on the site? A fruitless exercise I know but sometimes one can’t help playing such mind games.

The final minutes of the final meeting of the Hull General Cemetery Company were never signed off as no further meeting took place. In 1872 the Marie Celeste was found floating in the Atlantic with no one aboard yet still appearing as if it was crewed. One hundred years later so must the Hull General Cemetery have looked. The site continued to exist, the stones still stood in serried ranks, the wild things still scurried around and the trees and bushes still encroached further on to the paths. The site did not care a fig for legal obligations or who owned what. It just did what it does today; it continued to exist.

Hull Corporation come clean

For 18 months the site was ownerless and then things changed. On December 14th 1973, under the headline, ‘City to buy derelict cemetery’, the open secret that the Hull Corporation would take over the site was revealed finally.

The article went on to say in an unflattering way, and it must be said that the Hull Daily Mail was one of the site’s severest critics. It never failed to use the word ‘eyesore for the site.

Perhaps more sinisterly, the plans for the site were expounded by Mr J.A. Milne, the Director of the Council Leisure Services Department.

This is where this part of the story ends and the next stage of the story is already on this website. Please read it and realise what we have lost. A Monumental Loss

Postscript

I attempted to contact Mr Dennis back in 2016. I was intrigued by this whole episode as I hope you are. He had since retired from his role as a Director of Blawhurst Ltd and now lived in Devon. Sadly I never received a reply to my enquiries and perhaps he felt that, as L.P. Hartley said in The Go-Between, ‘The past is foreign country; they do things differently there.’ Like us all he perhaps feels that his youthful indiscretions should remain hidden and forgotten. Who am I to argue with that? It is a shame though.

Postscript Two

This is my last piece as editor of the website. It some ways it seems quite fitting to end with the end of the Company. It’s almost as if I had planned it that way which I assure you I hadn’t. I hope you have enjoyed these glances at some pieces of forgotten and ignored history. I hope you continue to enjoy the website and the cemetery itself for as long as you want to. Bye.

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 Sycamore

May 21, 2022 by Pete Lowdenin Volunteers, Wildlife

A few years ago I found this article about Sycamores. I remembered it when there was some argument about the balance between environmental concerns and heritage aspects of the site. I was constantly being told that only native plants should be in the cemetery. Non-native species would harm the delicate eco-balance.

When I pointed out to those people that the Sycamore was not a native tree, was a poor habitat for insects and birds and was effectively smothering out the remaining native trees I was met with silence and dismissed. Par for the course I suppose. It was probably deemed ‘Fake News’ in the parlance of today. Anyway I let it pass but the information in the article is too relevant to the present state of the cemetery to forget about so here’s the piece. See what you think.

Council recognition of the problem

When discussing this issue with the Council officers I said that 85% of the trees on the site were Sycamore to which they agreed and they also thought it was a problem. I asked whether a ‘cut and replace’ system could be instigated. This would be that a sycamore could be cut down and replaced with a native tree. They were honest and said the Council could not afford it and they were glad that the FOHGC were doing what they could in this area.

‘Controlling the Invader’

CONTROLLING THE INVADER by Pierre Binggeli published in Tree News Autumn 1994, 14-15.

In Britain sycamore has been the source of much debate based chiefly on people’s personal biases for or against the species rather than on factual evidence. This is not restricted to sycamore but applies to many invasive plant species (e.g. rhododendron) and often result from a poor understanding of ecology and more importantly, from the transfer of human values to plants (Binggeli 1994). In Tree News (summer 1993) Morton Boyd wrote about the pros and cons of sycamore in nature conservation and, having investigated the biology and ecology of sycamore over the past 15 years, I have reached similar conclusions (Binggeli 1992, 1993a). However, my own research and an extensive literature search has brought to light many references and relevant information not available to Morton Boyd.

Origin

Although some people believe sycamore to be native (eg, Harris 1987), both ecological and historical evidence support the view that the species was introduced around the fifteenth century, although a Roman introduction cannot be excluded (wood said to be sycamore has been found at Langton Villa). The native range of sycamore does not extend as far as the Channel, the North Sea or Atlantic coast, but its introduction and spread has been recorded throughout the coastal areas from Brittany to Norway.

The first British records of sycamore originate from Scotland. In 1842 a tree near Dunblane was described as 440 years old. In The Protocol Book of James Young a reference is made to a plane tree growing in the Garden of Sir Andrew Wood of Largo in 1497. Although the tree could have been an Oriental Plane, there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that it was a sycamore. Trees called Siccamour or sicamour, which can be seen in illustrations to be sycamore, grew near Paris. Sir Andrew Wood, who was an important Leith sea captain, frequently traded along the same estuary near Paris and it would have been easy for him to bring a siccamour home to Leith. (S. Mowat 1993, pers. comm.).

PERCEPTION

In Britain people’s attitude towards sycamore has always been ambivalent. In the fifteenth century Evelyn (in Johns 1847) stated that sycamore should be banished from gardens and avenues because its honeydew-coated leaves which, after their fall, turned to mucilage and putrefied, whereas Johns (1847) considered sycamore to be “somewhat of a favourite”. In the late nineteenth century sycamore, because of its non-durable wood, was “often regarded as a weed among forest-trees and rigorously cut down” although its timber was highly valued (Simpson 1905). The prevalence of sycamore around farmsteads in the western parts of the British Isles indicate that during the nineteenth century farmers favoured the species, which is poorly recorded in the literature, but a certain amount of plant lore has been documented (Binggeli 1993b).

During the present century sycamore drew little attention until around the 1960s when the people’s attitude became at first negative, and more recently positive. Its low associated insect species-richness, invasive potential, prolific regeneration in urban areas and heavy honeydew production gave sycamore a poor reputation. Lately, sycamore has been extensively praised.

FORESTRY

In forestry sycamore will probably become an important timber tree in lowland Britain as agricultural land is converted to timber production. Trials are presently being carried out to assess sycamore in agroforestry systems. The Forestry Authority is currently selecting and propagating sycamore but their selection procedure is mainly based on general tree morphology, particularly of the trunk and large branches.

Because variation in sycamore is extensive the potential for selection and breeding is very high but not fully appreciated by researchers. The following traits are known to be very variable: budding time, age of first flowering, sex expression, seed production, susceptibility to aphids, and wood quality (eg, wavy-grain), all of which significantly affect tree morphology and/or growth rates. By carefully selecting these variable it should be possible to produce clones of fast growing and high quality timber sycamore.

INVASIVENESS

Sycamore invades different types of woodlands in the British Isles including birch, ash, alder and oak woods and many disturbed sites. However, the speed of invasion is usually slow because the conditions suitable for sycamore regeneration only occur at irregular intervals despite a regular seed production. Rootlet penetration following germination is prevented by compacted and dry soils. Young individuals are intolerant of grass competition and are susceptible to fungal attack and to grazing either by slugs and/or small rodents, whilst saplings are grazed by large herbivores.

The respective importance of these controlling factors is affected by light availability, soil nutrients and weather (chiefly rainfall). In fact, sycamore can be described as a gap species, which becomes established in treefall gaps, heavily disturbed areas, or under the canopy of low shade-casting species such as birch, sea buckthorn and alder.

CONSERVATION VALUE

Sycamore is known to have few associated insect species and an average number of epiphytic lichens. For short periods of time it is an important food source for some species of invertebrates (eg, bees) and vertebrates (eg, rodents). Observations by Frankis (1993 pers. comm.) suggest that insects in the flaking bark of old sycamore on the eastern coast of England are an important source of food for some migrating birds.

A high number of breeding birds are found in sycamore stands as long as the stand consist of a mosaic of isolated trees and shrubs but not of a continuous canopy. A complete sycamore canopy markedly reduces light levels and ground species-richness in the woodlands it invades. There is no substantiated evidence that sycamore improves the soil. In case of climate warming the sooty bark disease could become a health hazard to humans. People object to their honeydew-covered cars or park benches, as well as to weeding seedlings from their gardens.

In terms of the number of animal and plant species which are known to be associated with sycamore it can be concluded that sycamore is typical of most native trees. However, to evaluate the conservation value of sycamore or of any invasive species it is essential to answer the following questions. Are any of the animal and plant species associated with it not found on any other tree species? Would species associated with sycamore become extinct, or at least their populations decrease to dangerously low levels, if sycamore was eradicated from a particular site?

If the answers to one of these questions is a clear yes then sycamore must be conserved. Otherwise, from a conservation value point of view, it can be said that sycamore merely displaces native tree species or increases productivity. For instance, aphids falling into streams from overhanging trees are important food source for young salmon and trout (Gray 1993), but obviously not essential to their survival since these fish have thrived in British waters long before the introduction of sycamore and are presently found in rivers not lined with sycamore.

Since the amount of work, manpower and money necessary to remove sycamore and carry out detailed scientific surveys of sites or regions to determine the conservation value of sycamore is too great, an alternative management strategy must be sought. This strategy entails the careful management of the countryside including selective planting and eradication of seed producing trees from conservation and amenity areas.

THE FUTURE

Using the reproductive behaviour of sycamore it is possible to devise a management strategy which can accommodate the different, if not opposite, interests of conservation, horticulture and forestry. The reason why an exotic becomes the subject of much debate is because the species becomes invasive. Invasiveness results chiefly from a prolific and regular production of viable seeds. Although in plants most species are hermaphrodite, not all individuals will carry viable seeds because of the wide spectrum of sex expressions observed. As a result of careful observations it is possible to identify individuals which do not set viable seeds. This is the case in sycamore where about one percent of the trees are male flowering and another 20-50 per cent of the hermaphrodite individuals do not set viable seeds, although they do produce fruits (samaras). These individuals, which function as males, can be identified in the field by the distinctively empty nutlets (see Binggeli 1990 for methodology).

In areas where the regeneration of sycamore is unwelcome, as in nature reserves, parks and residential areas, its control can be achieved by removal of seed producers. Planting of sycamore need not be banned as the establishment of male flowering trees will not create any problem of natural regeneration. In nature reserves where sycamore is thought to be provide an important source of food or substrate for a particular group of animals or plants, male flowering individuals may be retained.

In forestry and agroforestry the planting of male individuals only has two advantages. Firstly it removes the problem of seed production and unwanted natural regeneration, and secondly, more important from a timber point of view, male flowering trees grow faster (as much as 10 per cent) than seed producing individuals.

The selection and propagation of male flowering individuals is essential to the successful implementation of such a strategy. Propagation must be vegetative as we do not (yet?) have a method to identify male flowering individuals at the seedling stage. The propagation of hardwood cuttings has been achieved with a reasonable degree of success (eg, Williams et al. 1991). Although vegetative propagation is more expensive than direct sowing, this should be clearly offset by the reduction in the costs of control and weeding, and by the benefits from higher growth rates and timber quality.

For sycamore, as opposed to most other invasive species, we do have a solution which can control its invasiveness as well as enhance its commercial and amenity values. The development and implementation of a management plan based on our detailed knowledge of the biology and ecology of sycamore should see the end of the controversy usually associated it. If a consensus arises in Britain among all interested parties, Reverend Johns’ (1847) statement that sycamore “will continue to sow its own seeds and nurse its own offspring, as long as England exists” may be proved wrong.

References

Binggeli, P. (1990) Detection of protandry and protogyny in sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus L.) from infructescences. Watsonia 18, 17-20.

Binggeli, P. (1992) Patterns of invasion of sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus L.) in relation to species and ecosystem attributes. D.Phil. thesis, The University of Ulster.

Binggeli, P. (1993a) Conservation value of sycamore. Quarterly Journal of Forestry 87, 143-146.

Binggeli, P. (1993b) Sycamore lore. Plant-Lore Notes & News 29, 131-133.

Binggeli, P. (1994) The misuse of terminology and anthropomorphic concepts in the description of introduced species. The Bulletin of the British Ecological Society 25, 10-13.

Gray, C. (1993) The conservation value of sycamore. Quarterly Journal of Forestry 87, 235.

Harris, E. (1987) The case for sycamore. Quarterly Journal of Forestry 81, 32-36.

Johns, C.A. (1847) The forest trees of Britain. Vol 1. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London.

Simpson, J. (1905) The great trees of the northern forest. No 28. The sycamore maple (Acer pseudo-platanus). Flora Silva 3, 178-183.

Williams, A., Mayhead, G.J. and Good, J.E.G. (1991) Vegetative propagation of sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus L.). Quarterly Journal of Forestry 85, 179-182.

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

Cemetery Wildlife April – 2022

April 26, 2022January 17, 2025 by Helen Bovillin Volunteers3 Comments

CEMETERY WILDLIFE APRIL 2022

We have not had many of those famous April showers! The total rainfall has been much lower than average for the month and the footpaths are therefore dry and easy to walk on. There have been plenty of warm sunny days and the leaves on the trees have started to open. That fresh, bright pale green so characteristic of Spring is everywhere now.

Trees and Plants

The English Oak trees planted by the volunteers last year are doing well, especially the larger of the two.

Alongside the green foliage of most of the trees is the copper colouring of the new leaves on the large Beech tree in the centre of the cemetery. This tree is also known locally as the “Money Tree” and can be seen in my first photo.

Lower down, the Quince is flowering and nearby is some Yellow Archangel, which seems to do quite well in the shade.

The Lesser Celandines growing on the grass verge have almost finished flowering but they are still going strong inside the cemetery. The tiny blue flowers of the Forget-me-nots and Speedwell can now be seen if you look carefully amongst the other foliage.

Along the grass verge there is an abundance of Dandelions providing nectar for the Bees, Butterflies and other small insects. The similar-looking Hawks-beard can also be seen.

I also found some Ribwort Plantain – the first time I’d noticed any along here.

The Bluebells are now starting to flower but I will say more about them next month. It was good to see plenty of Garlic Mustard in flower – another valuable food source for Butterflies, especially the Orange-tip.

Butterflies and insects

This month I saw quite a few Small and Large White butterflies, and also Comma and Brimstone. I saw my first Orange-tips of the year this month. I also caught a few brief glimpses of my first Green-veined White of the year.

The underside of the Orange-tip’s wings looks green but this is an optical illusion caused by the black and yellow patterning.

This month also saw the first Holly Blues and Speckled Woods of the year appearing in good numbers along the verge and also inside the cemetery.

Holly Blues usually rest with their wings not fully open. These photos don’t really do them justice as they’re a much brighter blue than this but blink and you’ll miss them because they’re tiny and fast-flying. Males and females have similar underwings.

Other insects in abundance were Bees, Ladybirds and various flies including the Bee-fly.

Birds

There are still some berries on the Ivy, providing food for Wood Pigeons, Blackcaps and Blackbirds.

The birds are still busy gathering nesting material. I’ve seen quite a bit of activity around some of the bird boxes with Blue Tits in particular flying in and out of them. The larger birds will make nests of their own in the trees and bushes.

The Chiffchaffs have now arrived but are usually high up in the trees and not very easy to photograph. Their call is loud and distinctive though!

Conclusion

April has been a month of abundance, with an explosion of colour and growth in most of the plants. The number and variety of Butterflies I’ve seen is very encouraging – I’ve seen a total of 10 different species so far this year. Now is the perfect time for a stroll in the cemetery to enjoy the sights and sounds of the cemetery wildlife. You might also enjoy the many monuments too – it seems like the wildlife does! Cemetery Wildlife March 2022

Helen Bovill

Helen is a keen photographer and nature lover. She spent a large part of her working life at the Land Registry. She is a member of the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust and various other similar organisations. Living close to the Cemetery for over 30 years she has seen the fortunes of the site fluctuate and has joined the FOHGC to make a positive difference.

Lichens

April 26, 2022April 29, 2022 by Pete Lowdenin Volunteers, Wildlife4 Comments

I watched a TV programme presented by Chris Packham. It was about the amount of wildlife that a normal suburban garden sustains throughout the year. Very interesting. One of the most interesting parts of the programme was when he looked at the top of plant pot. He was looking with an expert at the top of the soil in a plant pot. To me it looked like it was covered in moss. Probably to you too. The expert said there was a least 5 and probably more different kinds of mosses and lichens there. Which perhaps just goes to show two things. One is that much of what we blindly lump together is actually quite different. Secondly I’m crap at telling mosses and lichens apart.

Which is where this guide comes in handy. I recently acquired a rather glossy information eight page leaflet that identified these types of growths. I would have never guessed that there were so many different lichens. Nor that churchyards would have been the perfect place to spot them. The leaflet was so good that I thought I’d circulate it here. I hope you find it as interesting as I did.

It is maybe something that local schools could use as a topic or it could become a the basis of a future walk, either organised or simply by yourself. Whatever enjoy the chance to educate yourself about this little known part of the natural world. Never again will you, unlike me, say, ‘Oh that’s just moss’. I hang my head in shame.

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

Next Month

April 20, 2022April 21, 2022 by Pete Lowdenin Events, History, Volunteers2 Comments

The newsletter next month will be my last as editor.

To celebrate this there will be two lengthy articles. The first will look at some of the men who took on the role of the Chairman of the Company. Most of them are buried in the cemetery. Most of them were successful in other spheres such as industry and medicine. The first provisional committee of the Company met in March 1845. The final meeting of the Company met in the summer of 1972. We’ll look at these ‘movers and shakers’ of Victorian and Edwardian Hull.

The second will examine in detail what went on in the confines of the last Board meeting of the Cemetery Company. It will show the desire on the part of the directors to give up and the unlooked for opposition to this. It will show the Cemetery could have been rescued by some long haired hippie types who went on to form a property company that still flourishes in the city. A fascinating ‘what if’ story.

Hope you’ll enjoy them. See you next month.

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

Chris Ketchell

April 20, 2022April 20, 2022 by Pete Lowdenin Events, Meetings, News, Talks, Volunteers2 Comments

Some of you may remember Chris Ketchell. A local historian of note he initiated the Local History Unit in the mid 1980s. The list of his local history publications stretches for 7 pages of A4. The amount of projects and campaigns he was involved in was almost as long.

His involvement with the Hull General Cemetery was also over a long period. He roamed the site well before it’s ‘redevelopment’ by Hull City Council. Chris was one of the major figures in the fight against this wilful destruction of habitat and heritage. He loved the site. His work, ‘Grown in Sadness and Beauty’ was the first attempt at a written history of the site. The FOHGC owes much to this man’s influence and spirit in its custodianship of the site.

Sadly Chris died in 2011 with perhaps many more works to come from his fertile mind and pen.

Lecture and plaque

There is an annual local history lecture given to commemorate this man’s life usually during the month of his birthday, April. Due to the pandemic the lecture did not take place during 2020 and 2021. The decision was made to hold it again this year. It will take place in the lecture theatre at the Hull History Centre on the 7th July at 2.00 pm.

I’m proud to say that I will give the lecture this year. The talk will be loosely based upon my The Rise and Fall of Hull General Cemetery but the latter part will focus upon the fight against the ‘redevelopment’ of the site in the 70s and Chris’ part in that fight.

I’m also pleased to say that, after consultation with the Avenues and Pearson Park Residents Association (APPRA), they felt that it was now appropriate that an APPRA green plaque be attached to the house he lived in Westbourne Avenue. This will be unveiled some time this summer. A fitting tribute to Chris Ketchell.

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

Anniversary 1859

April 20, 2022April 20, 2022 by Pete Lowdenin History, Volunteers2 Comments

The anniversary this month is from May 1859. It is, at least in my opinion, the point where the Cemetery began its slow decline. An Emergency Board Meeting was called by the Secretary, C.S.Todd. He said he had received a letter from the Chairman. The minutes of the meeting describe what the contents of this letter contained.

‘The sec. said a letter from Mr J.S.Thompson resigning his office as chairman and director of this board. The directors having considered the reasons assigned by Mr Thompson for such resignation and being desirous that he should still continue to act as chairman of the board. It was resolved that such resignation be not accepted. That the sec. be instructed to address a letter to Mr Thompson expressing the earnest desire and request of the directors that he will reconsider his decision and by withdrawing his letter of resignation resume his position and seat as chairman and director the board.’

The reply

On the 2nd June that year C.S.Todd read out the reply from J.S.Thompson to the Board. The minutes simply state that,

‘ received a reply thereto which he read to the Board and from which it appeared that Mr Thompson had determined not to withdraw his letter of resignation’

It is difficult to gauge from the above what a momentous point in time this was. The dry minutes do not reflect what consternation this resignation letter would have engendered. John Solomon Thompson had been the man who had navigated the Company through the task of selecting and buying the land. He had been instrumental in instigating the Act of Parliament that prevented the Hull Corporation for taking over the Cemetery. As the Chair he had negotiated hard with the Railway Company and forced it to change the proposed route of the Victoria Dock line. He had brought the Company through all of these perils and now he was resigning. Why?

What’s gone wrong?

Sadly, we have no knowledge of the ‘why’. Where are these letters? They are lost to us now in the wastepaper drive fomented by Churchill in World War Two. What on earth had happened that made the esteemed Chair feel he could no longer carry on?

In March everything was rosy. The Company were in negotiations with the Local Board of Health about leasing the western part of their grounds for burials. The Company had just signed the agreement and covenant with the Hull Workhouse for the burial of the town’s poor.

In those intervening two months something had upset John Thompson so much that he felt he had to resign.

I could hazard a couple of guesses on what had caused this turn of events but that is only guesswork and not to be written down as proof. Oh, how I’d love to have seen those letters that were sent. As I said earlier it’s just another of those mysteries that crop up now and again and cause me a headache. A troublesome anniversary. Anniversary April 1858

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

Cemetery Wildlife – March 2022

March 28, 2022January 17, 2025 by Helen Bovillin General, Volunteers, Wildlife2 Comments

Where do I begin? March has been a great month for the many and varied members of the cemetery wildlife family!

This first month of the new season started off with a few rainy days but then the sun came out. Most of the days have been very sunny with the occasionally frosty start, but daytime temperatures have been higher than average for this time of year.

This warm sunshine is just what the hibernating cemetery wildlife needed and I saw the first butterfly of the year – the above Small Tortoiseshell – on 10 March.

Insects

It’s nice to be writing about insects again! A week after I saw the Small Tortoiseshell, I saw Commas and Brimstones and I got a brief glimpse of a Peacock. These were on the grass verge alongside the cemetery, but I also saw some of them inside the main part of the cemetery.

These four species of butterfly spend Winter as adults and can sometimes have slightly damaged wings by the time they emerge. This isn’t surprising considering the number of storms they’ve had to survive this year. But I did also see some very smart, new-looking individuals too.

I saw two Brimstones and both were males. Their wings are bright yellow but they always rest with their wings closed so you only see that bright yellow in flight. The females emerge slightly later than the males and are a pale green, almost white.

During the last weekend I saw my first white butterflies of the season. I saw a very active Small White on the grass verge. It only stopped very briefly and when I studied my photo, I found it was a male.

Then in the edible garden area behind Thoresby Primary School I saw a Large White. I realise this isn’t a part of the cemetery but think for the purposes of this report it can be included. After all, if your main entry into the cemetery takes you past this area then your cemetery wildlife experience begins here.

Both these species spend their winters as a pupa – a good indication that the weather is now warm enough for the butterflies to complete their final transition into full adults.

So that’s six different species of butterfly in just one month and in a relatively small area. Quite impressive!

There have been plenty of Bees around. The queens have emerged from their Winter hibernation and are starting to look for places to start a new colony.

These are the main species I’ve seen so far – Buff-tailed, White-tailed and Red-tailed Bumblebees, and Common Carder Bees. I also saw a Tawny Mining Bee towards the end of the month.

I also saw some Bee-flies. Their fluffy little bodies make them look remarkably like small bees. If you’re lucky to see one of these flies resting on a flower or a leaf look at the wings, held open at right angles to the body. Bees rest with their wings over their bodies.

Another insect I was delighted to see was this Hawthorn Shield Bug, on a Common Dog Violet leaf.

There are lots of Ladybirds of various kinds around too. Note the 7-Spot one on the right of the Commas photo for example. This is one of the twelve species native to the UK, and there are also Harlequin Ladybirds around too.

Plants and Flowers

After a slow start the Lesser Celandines are now flowering in abundance and the grass verge at the side of the cemetery is looking beautiful. They are also flowering inside the cemetery. These small yellow flowers can have between 8 and 13 petals, and they feature on several of the photos in this report. The other yellow flowers in the photos are Dandelions.

The Blackthorn trees around the cemetery are now in full flower and some of the leaf buds have started to open. Fresh green shoots are starting to appear on some of the other trees as well.

But when you look at the ground the signs of Spring are all around in the smaller flowers now starting to open. Red Dead-nettle and Wood Anemones are currently in flower on the grass verge.

Inside the cemetery small patches of Common Dog Violets can now be seen, and I even found a few Periwinkles in flower.

Birds

The birds are in full song at the moment, with the Robins being one of the loudest.

The gathering of nest material has begun in earnest and I’ve seen several Blue Tits exploring the nest boxes.

Last year the volunteers sunk a shallow dish into the ground in the Quaker Burial Ground as there is no natural supply of water in the cemetery. Other than the pools that form in wet weather of course! The Blackbirds seem especially fond of it. It’s topped up regularly in dry weather but is kept shallow for the safety of all visitors.

As far as the larger birds are concerned, there are Magpies, Carrion Crows, Stock Doves and Wood Pigeons in the cemetery. They can be seen foraging among the many ground covering plants including Wild Garlic, the leaves of which are shown here.

Some of the volunteers had a close encounter with a Sparrowhawk, flying close over their heads and into the far corner of the cemetery. It was too fast for a photo though! I also caught a brief glimpse of a female Blackcap earlier in the month. There are also Goldfinches, Chaffinches, Great Tits, Coal Tits, Long-tailed Tits and Dunnocks around.

Conclusion

March has been a great month for the cemetery wildlife, with lots of sunshine and warmth. But I couldn’t end this report without mentioning the Daffodils which are now open throughout the cemetery. They are looking particularly spectacular along the grass verge, and should continue to look good well into April.

Cemetery Wildlife February 2022

Helen Bovill

Anniversary April 1858

March 28, 2022 by Pete Lowdenin General, History, Volunteers4 Comments

Sometimes, you know you are going to have a bad day. From when you get up to when you go to bed things just keep on going wrong. This month’s anniversary celebrates – if that’s the right word – a bad week for a number of people.

The clergy attack

Back in April 1858 John Shields had a bad week. On Thursday, the 1st of April Mr Shields had to defend himself against some criticism from the clergy. Mr Graham, the curate of Holy Trinity, approached the Board. He said that the superintendent had used, ‘most gross and insulting language towards him when in the discharge of his clerical duties.’

Sadly, what was said or not said, was not recorded. However, the Board said they would investigate and called Mr Shields before them. The Board may also have been wanting to be seen to do the right thing. However, the Board must also have had misgivings about Mr Graham’s evidence.

This was because the clergy of Holy Trinity parish had long held some resentment towards the Cemetery. With the coming of the Cemetery the burials in the Holy Trinity churchyard and the Castle Street burial ground had decreased sharply. This in turn affected the revenue of the clergy. And, sadly, this drop in income was probably the most important factor in their continuing to bury people in these overcrowded burial grounds.

So, the Board knew that there may well have been some other reason behind this accusation. I don’t believe that their investigation would have been more than asking Mr Shields whether he had been insulting to Mr Graham. When Mr Shields probably replied no, that would have been the end of that.

The next week

On the following Monday, the 5th, Mr Shields had a much more delicate and distasteful task before him. Let’s try to set the scene.

He will have been working in his office in the Lodge. Probably trying to get his books up to date as Sunday was the busiest day for the Cemetery. That was day when most burials took place and he was probably rushed off his feet that day getting the chapel ready for each burial. Apart from that he would have had to check the paperwork for each burial and take the monies owed. This was apart from supervising the staff throughout the day. Yes, probably a busy day and Monday was the day to sort it all out.

A knock on the door of the office. Two of his staff stood there. Probably with their caps off and maybe even shuffling their feet a little. On the door being opened I’m pretty certain that one of them would have said they’d found something. And I’m equally sure that Mr Shields would have asked what had they found and been equally as shocked at their answer.

Inside the box

For they had found a box in the shrubbery near to the new cholera monument. Inside that box they found two dead children. Two female babies, One can imagine his shock at this news and his horror when he went to look for himself. He contacted the police immediately who arrived and took the children’s bodies away ‘to Newland to wait the Coroner’s request’.

He reported it to the Board but no more information is forthcoming in the Minute Books.

Child life expectation

However this was not a singular incident. It may well have been unusual in the confines of the Cemetery but the lives of children during this period could be short. The life expectancy in Britain in 1850 was 42 years. For the working class this would have been significantly lower, probably 28 years. And the life expectancy at this time was so low because of the large number of children who died before they reached the age of 5. Over 25% of children died before reaching the age of one. 40% of all the annual deaths in the Victorian period were of children under 5 years old.

The anonymous author of A Short History of the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, commented that to be an English baby at the beginning of the 20th century was ‘to occupy a position as perilous as that of a soldier going about to go into action’. With such statistics it is difficult to counter that claim.

Illegitimacy

Illegitimate babies were much more at risk. In the 1870s it was estimated that 35% of all such births in manufacturing towns died before the age of one. In London it was nearer 75%. It is highly likely that the children found in the Cemetery were illegitimate.

Let’s look at this crime a little. It is sad to say that in law, and probably in reality, this crime was seen as a ‘female crime’. Until 1803 the crime of infanticide was tried under the Bastardy Act of 1624. Under this act the mother had to prove, via witnesses, that the child had been born dead. Unless she could prove this she faced the death penalty, for it was a capital crime. Over time, as more and more juries failed to convict the accused for one reason or another, a new Act was proposed.

1803

This was the 1803 Act. This Act required the prosecution to prove that a murder had taken place. However if this could not be proved another option presented itself. The jury could return a verdict of ‘concealment of birth’. The penalty for this was from two months up to two years in prison.

Why would a woman conceal her pregnancy or the birth of a child? One of the many reasons why this would happen was the nature of Victorian society, especially towards unmarried mothers. Emsley in Crime and Society in England 1750-1900 states,

‘Most of the women brought before the courts charged with infanticide during the 18th and 19th centuries appear to have been young women, commonly servants, desperate to maintain their positions and their respectability’.

So babies were ‘routinely killed’. Carver in The 19th Century Underworld states,

‘The Thames held as many bodies as the Ganges’. He goes on to show a typical case he found in the Marylebone Mercury of August 1859,

‘The body of a baby boy was found floating in a water-butt of a house in Upper Boston Street. Attention had been alerted when the wife of a tenant noticed a peculiar taste in the water.’ It doesn’t bear thinking about does it? Yet, as the figures above show, this was a commonplace occurrence.

The New Poor Law

How did we get to this situation? The law didn’t help. The 1834 New Poor Law Act had a Bastardy clause. This said that all children born out of wedlock were the sole responsibility of their mothers. To gain a flavour of how the law saw such people the mothers of bastard children were described as ‘vicious’ in the legislation. It was hoped that the legislation would stop, ‘idleness, bastardy and beer drinking.’ But only in women as the Act wasn’t aimed at the other sexual partner!

Abortion

And, of course, in an attempt to avoid this scenario abortion rears its head. And we come back to the 1803 Act. Prior to that Act abortion was met with a fine or a short term of imprisonment. However if the child was terminated before ‘the quickening’ there was no penalty. The ‘quickening’ was deemed to be when the mother could feel the foetus move, around the 13th week of pregnancy.

By 1837 this loophole was removed. Under this Act, it was only the abortionist who committed a criminal act in conducting an abortion not the mother. This changed with the introduction of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 which is still on the statute book. It encompasses such crimes as GBH and ABH. Under this Act both the abortionist and the woman were both deemed equally guilty. Abortion was removed as a criminal act by legislation in 1967.

Conclusion

However, the foetus still needed to be disposed of. Which is where the bodies in the cemetery may well have come from.

I’m sure that John Shields’ week must have become better. I wonder more about the poor girl who gave birth. Would she ever forget her dead children being left alone in a lonely place beside a monument to death from disease? In that context John Shields’ bad week was nothing in comparison. It was not a good anniversary for her. That girl had a heavy burden to carry for much longer than a week. Placed upon her by an uncaring society. A society lauded by some politicians and historians, even now, as a highpoint of civilization. Victorian values eh?

Anniversary March 1877

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

Freddy Kruger

March 24, 2022 by David Hamiltonin General, History, Volunteers2 Comments

Freddy Krüger and Family revealed

The grave site C37/3060 in Hull General Cemetery before the plot had been cleared in late 2021 and the parts of the headstone re-united.

Freddy Krüger and family revealed

The gravestone located in Hull General Cemetery had long been hidden beneath a thick bed of ivy and other vegetation. The “Friends” of the cemetery often referred to this plot as “Freddy Krüger’s Grave. Late in 2021, the volunteers decided to clear the plot and liberate the headstone from the vegetation, in doing so they found the stone was in two pieces, one of which was lying face down. Once the two parts had been reunited the inscription was clear and read as follows: –

The inscription reveals a close link between the Raines and the Krüger families. Interestingly there is a lack of any biographical information in contrast with other memorials in the Cemetery.

After research over several weeks the true story of the Krüger and other families was revealed and we find a story of the Baltic trade between Hull and Russia, shipwreck, tragedy, and philanthropy in Victorian Hull through to the early 20th century.

Descendants of Robert Raines

Sarah Raines

Sarah was one of at least three daughters of Rev. Robert and Elizabeth Raines, she was born in 1789 and baptised in Hull St. Mary on 3rd June and died 12th July 1861. She appears to have been a lady of independent means who lived all her life in Hull and never married. In the 1851 census she is living at 7 Spring Street, head of the household with a nephew and two servants. The nephew is registered as Edward Brebim aged 19 and working as an engineer, nationality, Russian born in Riga. (I have been unable to find any family connection to Edward and the surname is untraceable and suspect).

There is an entry in Pigot’s Directory of 1828/9 of Sarah Raines having a Millinery and Dressmaking business at 1 Jarratt Street. There are no other records of her being in business in Hull and no references to her in the local press.

However, we find a detailed press report in the Hull Packet of a trial at Somerset Assizes on March 29th 1800. A certain Mrs Leigh Perrott was charged with stealing lace in the shop of Miss Gregory, in the City of Bath. Miss Sarah Raines, apprentice to Miss Gregory (milliner and owner of the shop), swore that on the 8th of August the prisoner came to the shop……. and was a witness to the theft.

In the 1861 census records we find Sarah living at 24 Pearson Street with one servant where she dies of “decay of nature” in July the same year. There is no record of any obituary, will or probate.

Elizabeth Raines

Sarah Raines’ sister Elizabeth was born in 1781 and died on 10th November, 1849, she is buried in Humbleton churchyard. She also had a sister Mary-Ann born in 1787 who was married to John Whitton.

Elizabeth married Francis Reimers, gentleman, on 18th February 1798 in Holy Trinity, Hull. They had two children: –

Francis Thomas born May 1800 and died January 1869 Christiana Elizabeth born December 1802

Francis Reimers died in August 1803 and buried in Hull St Mary on 30th August leaving Elizabeth a widow. His estate was valued at £100.

On the 7th March, 1810 Elizabeth marries “Jno. Frederick Krügar” in Holy Trinity, Hull. On his marriage to Elizabeth he is described as a German Teacher.

There are no official records of “John Frederick” in UK archives. His birth and death are not recorded but his marriage to Elizabeth Reimers (nee Raines) in 1810 is recorded in the Hull Trinity Parish record and there is a note of him being a clergyman in 1848 on the marriage of his son Henry Raines Krüger1 to Eleanor Blythe. There is no evidence of his presence at the marriage as a witness.

In the 1841 Census we also find Elizabeth living with her children from her first marriage at Prospect Street. Francis Thomas Reimers (her son) is head of the household, she is not described as a widow. It therefore seemed as if “John Frederick” was deceased by 1841 or had otherwise disappeared without trace.

¹There are two Henry Raines, son and grandson of Johann Friedrich Krüger

Johann Joachim Friedrich Krüger

Later I found strong evidence of family ties to St. Petersburg in Russia and that Henry Raines Krüger (his grandson) spent time in St. Petersburg with his first wife Edith who died there in the Alexander Hospital in 1886. I therefore wondered if “John Frederick” was a Lutheran clergyman of Russian descent. I found there are two Lutheran cemeteries in St. Petersburg. In the Smolenskoe Lutheran Cemetery in St. Petersburg there are several “Krügers” interred and in particular Johann Joachim Friedrich Krüger. Born 3rd July 1797 and died 3rd December 1874 age 77 years. This would seem a good match as he would have been 33 years old in 1810 on his marriage to Elizabeth.

“Rest peacefully in your tomb, your saviour will welcome you”

A further search of the cemetery records failed to find Edith, first wife of Henry Raines Krüger who died in Alexandra Hospital in 1886 although there are several other “Krügers” interred there.

It would seem that Johann lived in St. Petersburg along with other members of the family and it is likely he worked as an agent for Hull merchants in the Balkan trade with Russia.

Descendants of Johann Joachim Friedrich Krüger

Captain John Frederick Krüger

John Frederick was the youngest of Johann Friedrich’s three children, a merchant seaman, master mariner, latterly a marine surveyor and Trinity House Brother. He was called as an expert witness in several inquests into maritime accidents. He was clearly an esteemed member of the Hull community and there are numerous press reports of his close involvement, together with his brother Captain Henry Raines Krüger in the affairs of the Port of Hull Sailors’ Orphan Homes (see later).

In 1854 he married Emily Atkinson in Sculcoates, she was born in 1825 and died 28th October 1880 in Hull and is interred in Hull General Cemetery.

In the Merchant Seamen’s register (BT120), May 1836 he is Mate aged 25 on a ship belonging to Welton of Hull. Later in 1842 – 1844 he is recorded as a merchant seaman aboard the Royal William.

By 1851 he has become a Master Mariner living at 7 Spring Street. In July 1854 he was deemed qualified to be an expert witness at the Coroner’s Inquest into the loss of life resulting from the launch of the barque Dowthorpe which went awry (appendix 2).

In the 1861 census (ships at sea) he is Master of the paddle steamer PS LION along with his wife Emily, the Master’s wife aged 36 and his young son John Frederick aged 2¹/₂.

The P S LION (pictures in Maritime Museum and Ferens Art Gallery) a Hull based paddle steamer,

626 tons, 320HP built by Brownlow & Co., Hull

During the Crimean War the ship was chartered by the government for the conveyance of troops and stores. After the war she was lengthened and converted to screw propulsion at 150HP and 690 tons, before conversion she required 650 tons of coal for the St. Petersburg voyage and now only 350 tons was required and was able to carry an extra 400 tons of cargo, and her speed increased from 6.5 to 8 knots.

On the 18th November 1861 the SS LION left Kronstadt and encountered a gale, Captain Winteringham and Captain Krüger a passenger managed to drive her ashore on the island of Gotland off the Swedish coast where she was driven to pieces in the gale. The crew and passengers managed to get ashore.

Leeds Mercury, 13^th August 1888

PROBATE of the will dated 18^th February 1881, of the late Captain John Frederick Krüger of Hull, Marine Superintendent, who died on the 10^th June last, and was one of the oldest members of the Hull Merchant Service and an Elder Brother of the Hull Trinity House, has been granted to the executors, his sons. Mr. Henry Raines Krüger and Mr. John Frederick Krüger and Mr Joseph Atkinson. The testator devises all his real estate for sale and bequeaths the proceeds and all residue of his property to his said two sons and his daughter, Mrs Sarah Raines, as his tenants in common, the value of the personal estate being £6.613 15s 8d.

The Port of Hull Society’s Sailors’ Orphan Homes

Captain John Frederick and his brother Captain Henry Raines Krüger were prominent members of the merchant shipping community, Brethren of Trinity House and lifelong supporters of the Port of Hull Society’s Orphan Homes charity. Their dedication and generosity are recorded in a small book Lifebelt and Anchor published around 1900 recording the history of the Port of Hull Society as well as in numerous press reports of the activities of the society.

Capt. J. F. Krüger was one of the founding members of the Port of Hull Society and at the time of his death was the oldest serving member of the committee. He was connected with the earliest beginnings of the Orphanage and School. In conjunction with his brother Capt. H. R. Krüger, and Mr John Wright, he took an active interest in the enlargement of the orphanage when Mr Titus Salt gave his great contribution. (Titus Salt donated £5000 towards the cost of the new wing to accommodate an additional 100 orphans).

Capt. Krüger had been a member of the board of Trinity House since 1869, and he advocated the claims of the Orphanage with such zeal before the Trinity House brethren that they eventually became large subscribers to our funds, The generous subscriptions which, at this time were received from St. Petersburg, were also the result of Captain Krüger’s influence.

Lifebelt and Anchor, p125

Engraving reproduced from Lifebelt and Anchor

The Orphan’s Home is still in existence and is now the Park Hotel in Park Street.

Park Street

On the façade of the former Sailor’s Orphans Home in Park Street, Commerce and Navigation are depicted providing Charity with the means to care for homeless waifs

The Book of Hull, John Markham

Captain Henry Raines Krüger

Captain Henry Raines Krüger, son of Johann Friedrich and younger brother of John Frederick, born in 1813. He died in March 1874.

In the same year (1874) the committee were saddened by the death of Mr H R Krüger, one of two brothers who were among the earliest and most zealous friends of the Society. He was a sea captain and an agent for Messrs. Brownlow & Lumsden, a prominent firm of Hull shippers at that time. His duties connected him very closely with Russia; indeed there was Russian blood in his veins. For thirty years he had served on the committee, and in work for the Orphan Home few could have been more faithful than he.

Lifeboat and Anchor, p 99

Rev. Henry Raines Krüger

Henry was the eldest son of Captain John Frederick, born in June 1857 in Sculcoates he spent most of his early life as a forwarding clerk in the shipping trade. In the 1881 census he is living with his father John Frederick at 3, Wright Street. At this stage he is still single.

On the 27th December 1883 he marries Edith Kershaw in St. Paul’s Church, Sculcoates. Shortly after we find he and his new wife have relocated to St. Petersburg, Russia where she dies in the Alexander Hospital on the 24th February 1886.

PROBATE

17^th April 1886

Personal estate £306

Administration (with the Will) of the Personal Estate of Edith Krüger (wife of Henry Raines Krüger) late of 37 Louis Street in the Borough of Kingston-upon-Hull who died 24^th February 1886 at the Alexander Hospital, St. Petersburg in Russia was granted at YORK under certain Specialities to the said Henry Raines Krüger of 37 Louis Street and of 9 Fish Street both in Kingston-upon-Hull. Forwarding agent and John Frederick Krüger the younger of 3 Wright Street, Kingston-upon-Hull Provision Merchant the Executors.

I can find no record of her burial in St. Petersburg or anywhere else.

Henry must have remained in St. Petersburg for several more years, presumably either working with or for his father or grandfather in their shipping business as he is not recorded in the 1891 census.

By 1893 Henry has found a new life. He marries Mary Ellen Fergie in Wigan, gains a BA and is appointed to the curacy of Cullompton on the 15th June the same year. He continued his studies, gained an MA and is appointed Rector of Jacobstowe, Okehampton, Devon.

His widow, Mary Ellen retired to Hove, Sussex and died there on 30th November 1945, her estate was valued at £2,548.

Exeter and Plymouth Gazette, 18^th September 1929

Devon Clergyman’s Death

The death has taken place of the Rev. H. R. Krüger, who at one time held the curacy at Cullompton and was later presented with the living at Jacobstowe by the late Sir R. T. White-Thomson. After working in the parish for some years he was offered one of the new churches built to meet the demand of the growing population in certain parts of Plymouth. On the death of the Rev. J. W. Banks, he was presented with the living at Hatherleigh, coming to reside in the parish in 1918. In the summer of 1927, while on holiday he had a seizure which left him practically paralysed and he was persuaded by his friends to retire from active work, and a Commission granted him a pension from his living, which in the meantime was accepted by the Rev. J. C Rossiter. Much sympathy was felt for Mrs. Krüger, who has been the indefatigable nurse and constant attendant ever since her husband’s sudden illness. A knell was rung on the bells from Holsworthy, and on Sunday the Vicar made feeling reference and asked for the prayers of his congregation on behalf of Mrs. Krüger.

John Frederick Krüger (the younger) and the Apple Trade

John Frederick Krüger was the younger son of Captain John Frederick Krüger, born 18th September, 1858 in Sculcoates. We first find him aboard the PS LION with his mother and his father in command on route to Hamburg or one of the other Baltic ports. He soon becomes a shipping and merchant’s clerk, joins White & Sons fruit importers, and works his way up to senior management and a seat on the board.

John Frederick married Harriet Anne Gray on the 18^th October 1888 in the Herrington Street Chapel in Sunderland.

He was evidently a valued employee and on good terms with Colonel William Lambert White, governing director of White and Sons fruit importers as he received a gift of £100 as a token of his friendship. (Hull Daily Mail, 23^rd September 1930)

Yorkshire Post

Monday December 12th, 1932

J.F. Krüger

Pioneer of the Australian Apple Trade in Hull

Mr John Frederick Krüger, who has died at his home, 23 Park Avenue, Hull, was the pioneer of the large trade in Australian Apples now done by the port. He was a director of the firm of White and Sons, Ltd fruit importers and spent 58 years with it having joined in 1874, when the business was carried on under the style of White and Son and Strutten. He went overseas a great deal for the company.

In 1912 he was in Australia and through his initiative the first direct consignment of Australian apples was sent to Hull. The trade was developed considerably, over 400,000 boxes being imported to Hull last year. At a later date he also arranged for direct shipment of apples from South Africa but owing to the difficulty of obtaining return cargoes they had to be discontinued. A dinner was given in his honour in 1924 to celebrate 50 years with the trade.

Footnote and acknowledgements

This has been a fascinating journey through the history of merchant shipping and people of the Port of Hull in Victorian England. It has been a challenge to condense all the information I have gleaned into a concise biographical story of the Raines and Krüger families, their ancestors and descendants.

I was fortunate to find the small textbook on the history of the Port of Hull Society’s Sailors’ Orphan Homes in the Carnegie Centre “Lifebelt and Anchor” (H362.73) in which I found the images of Captains J. F and H. R Krüger together with the engraving of the orphanage in Park Street.

Finally, I want to thank Karen Towner for her encouragement and advice in compiling this biography

Appendix 1

This page reproduced from Lifeboat and Anchor, the history of the Port of Hull Society showing the eminent benefactors of the Society.

Appendix 2

Illustrated London News, July 22nd, 1854

LOSS OF LIFE AT SHIP LAUNCH

On the morning of Thursday week, Messrs. Earles, the eminent iron shipbuilders, of Hull, had arranged to launch from their yard at the east end of Victoria Dock, a very fine iron barque, named the Dowthorpe which they had built for Messrs John Beadle and Co., merchants of Hull.

This vessel is about 400 tons burthen and has on deck two poop houses. Everything was prepared, and as it was thought, every precaution taken to ensure success in the launching. Men were stationed at all posts to prevent people from getting on board the vessel, but without avail. At the time of launching there were between 300 and 400 persons on board, and of these, as many as could conceivably stand had stationed themselves on the roof of the poop houses where there was not a scrap of rope or an inch of bulwark to hold on by.

At about ten minutes past eleven o’clock the ceremony of naming the vessel Dowthorpe was performed by Miss Baird, the last of the wedges was knocked out, and the good ship glided easily and well into the water. At time it was found, we are informed, that there was too much “way” on her and some efforts were made to check her. At the same time the people on board, with the usual carelessness of danger, commenced “sallying” her – that is rushing from side to side, to make her rock in the water. Down she dipped on one side, and at this moment one of the check ropes broke, bringing the whole strain of checking on the other side, to which at the same moment the people rushed.

The combined influence of the two forces heeled the vessel completely on her beam ends, and the unfortunate people who had taken their stand on the “poops” were shot into the water one upon the other. For the moment it was thought the ship would go over altogether; but fortunately, at this moment the other check rope broke, and this, together with the lightening of the top load, by the precipitation of the people into the water, enable the vessel to right herself. In the meantime there were between fifty and sixty men and boys struggling in the water, pressing on each other to make their escape.

Happily, there were several rafts of timber floating in the dock, and upon these clambered a large proportion of the unfortunates. The loss, therefore, is not so great as might have been feared, four persons only having been dragged up. The names of the persons who have been found drowned are John Jackson, twenty-two years of age, rivet man; Joseph Lucas, fourteen, son of Mr. Lucas, hairdresser; John Coulon, twenty-four, labourer; and John Shipson, nineteen, ship-carpenter

To sell or not to sell

A more emollient approach

The Acts of Parliament

One hundred years later

Recall of Capital

1955

The offer of a deal

Roscoe’s Report

1966 and all that

The plan

Mr Dennis

Counterfactual

Income generating?

Plastic people

Cold water

The cat is out of the bag

A clarification – of sorts

The final meeting

What a novel idea

Back at the meeting

Hull Corporation come clean

Postscript

Postscript Two

Council recognition of the problem

‘Controlling the Invader’

Origin

PERCEPTION

FORESTRY

INVASIVENESS

CONSERVATION VALUE

THE FUTURE

References

CEMETERY WILDLIFE APRIL 2022

Trees and Plants

Butterflies and insects

Birds

Conclusion

Lecture and plaque

The reply

What’s gone wrong?

Insects

Plants and Flowers

Birds

Conclusion

The clergy attack

The next week

Inside the box

Child life expectation

Illegitimacy

1803

The New Poor Law

Abortion

Conclusion

Freddy Krüger and Family revealed

Freddy Krüger and family revealed

Descendants of Robert Raines

Sarah Raines

Elizabeth Raines

Johann Joachim Friedrich Krüger

Descendants of Johann Joachim Friedrich Krüger

Captain John Frederick Krüger

Leeds Mercury, 13th August 1888

The Port of Hull Society’s Sailors’ Orphan Homes

Park Street

Captain Henry Raines Krüger

Rev. Henry Raines Krüger

John Frederick Krüger (the younger) and the Apple Trade

Footnote and acknowledgements

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Leeds Mercury, 13^th August 1888