Company records Archives - Friends Of Hull General Cemetery

The Company, Cholera, Colouring and the Corporation

September 24, 2023September 27, 2023 by Pete Lowdenin General, History, Points of Interest, Volunteers1 Comment

Most of you will know that the ‘great visitation’ inscribed on the large obelisk in the Cemetery refers to the cholera outbreak of the late summer of 1849. This was the second time that true cholera had touched the townspeople of Hull. The 1849 epidemic was the worst outbreak of the disease that Hull ever suffered. As such memories of those grim days lingered in the collective consciousness.

Cholera

This may explain the letter that the Company received in early September 1893. Signed by the Town Clerk, R. Hill-Dawes ,it was friendly enough but requested information in relation to a resolution passed by the Cholera Sub-Committee the previous day. That there was in existence such a sub-committee shows the fear of cholera still reigning in Hull. It didn’t help that a new wave of cholera was sweeping across the world around this time.

Although it was now known how cholera was transmitted, via contaminated water, that didn’t offer immunity to the people of Hull. The reason for this was that many of the people were still dependent upon stand-pipes and that not all of the cesspits had been closed down. As such this letter landed on the the Cemetery Superintendent’s desk, dated the 6th September 1893. He reported it to his board of directors at the 3rd October Board meeting.

A Quick Response

As may be seen, the Town Clerk desired the Secretary’s ‘observations’ the very next day. as it was ‘of urgent importance’. The Secretary after having read the resolution on the other side of the letter knew this needed a response from the Board not just from him. The resolution, copied below, alludes to the cholera grounds in the cemetery.

Upon receipt of this letter the Secretary immediately informed the Chairman. The Chair carefully drafted a reply for Michael Kelly to send. In this reply the Chair refuted any tampering of the area where the cholera victims were laid to rest. This was a patch of ground comprising of parts of four compartments; 96, 97, 122, 123. This appeared to be where the majority of cholera victims were buried. But not all. If a family member died of the disease and that family had a family plot then that family member would have had the right to be buried there. There was also the mystery of plot 121 which I’ve written about before.

Mysteries

Why Panic Now?

So, on many occasions the ground that contained a cholera victim could have been disturbed. Why the panic now?

As mentioned earlier the Corporation was anxious due to the new pandemic, They were taking steps to not allowing cholera to come in via the back door so to speak. They needn’t have worried. Unlike such diseases as tetanus the cholera bacillus cannot persist in the ground unless it lives in the groundwater. After almost 50 years since the 1849 epidemic the likelihood of the cholera bacillus being active was extremely remote. But rational thought doesn’t come into it when dealing with a pandemic. We all saw that recently didn’t we?

The Reply

The chair’s reply is below, signed by Michael Kelly.

With this reply the matter appears to die a death. It never resurfaces in the minute books. We have no knowledge of whether any of the sub-committee availed themselves of the offer to visit the cholera ground.

Paranoia

Two points are apparent from this reply. One is that the paranoia that affected most of the Company’s board meetings during the period since the Borough Cemetery opened in 1862 were reaching an unhealthy peak at this time. The minute books are strewn with comments alleging that the Company was under attack from all and sundry. The message is that the Company was struggling to function and that cutbacks were necessary. Yet at the same time very healthy dividends were regularly paid to its shareholders. To square this cognitive dissonance it became necessary to claim that unfair methods were being used against the Company. This attitude continued until the the 1930’s when reality finally made the Company realise it no longer had the assets to contain trading. This was when it began to seriously look to liquidation but that is another story.

Colour Coding

The second point is perhaps more mundane but interesting nonetheless. You may have noticed that Kelly states that,

‘In the plan of the Cemetery all these Cholera Public Grave were inked Salmon Colour as a guide to the Officials’

This was true, at least in the first part of the Cemetery’s life. All grave spaces were assigned a colour. This was dependent upon the status of the grave space being used. The index of this system is shown below although Kelly noted at the top of the page that this system had not been used for some time.

Compartment 102

So, for example if we look at compartment 102 we can see this system in operation. Note the large red square to the lower part of map. This corresponds to the large monument to William Hunt Pearson . Other examples of the second class of graves includes Harbord Harbord at the top of the image.

William Hunt Pearson’s monument as it was in the 1990s. Below is a more recent photograph.

The Victorian Cult of the Funeral

In many areas of Victorian society you were ultimately judged upon your material wealth. Even in death equality did not reign. The rise of the funerary business and the memorialisation of all those who could afford it took off in this period. Poorer families would descend further into debt to give their family member a ‘good send-off’ mainly because it was expected of them. That the neighbours ‘would talk’ was still a feature of communities when I was a young boy in the 1950s. How much worse it must have been when the funeral industry was in its pomp and dictating what sort of crepe and the colour of linen that could be used depending upon your relationship to the corpse doesn’t bear thinking about.

The obelisk that adorns Pearson’s vault tells all and sundry that he was important because he was wealthy. And now you know that not only did he have a large monument but it stood upon a first class grave. vault That may have been some comfort to him and his family. The rites were observed and those attending the funeral would have been suitably assured that Pearson was a ‘great man’. However he was still as dead as those poor people in the workhouse plots and now, like them, he resides in a derelict cemetery where his first class status means nothing any longer.

Oh well, as Dylan sang, ‘That’s life and life only’. Or in this case death.

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 December 1846

November 18, 2022November 30, 2022 by Pete Lowdenin History

This month’s anniversary I’m afraid does not have a Christmas theme. In fact it’s quite morbid in parts but well, we are talking about a cemetery so that comes with the territory.

As some of you may remember the Cemetery Company signed an agreement with the Union workhouses of both Hull and Sculcoates. Part of that agreement was that the Company would arrange to have any inmate of the workhouses who died brought to the Cemetery as soon as possible and placed in the Company’s Dead House, or what we would call a mortuary. That cemeteries had such buildings was quite common. Castle Street had one but it had a bad reputation as bodies left in the building were often found to have been partly eaten by the many rats that lived on the docks and in the cemetery. As such it was closed down and the Spring Street Mortuary replaced it in the early 20th century. The present City mortuary is situated on the HRI site.

Complaint

On the 30th December 1850 John Shields, the superintendent, received a deputation from the stonemasons He passed this complaint on to the Board of Directors. John Shields reported that,

‘complaints had been made by the stonemasons engaged in the Company’s stone shed of the dangers likely to arise from the near proximity of the Dead house to such shed’

It’s difficult to see today what the concerns were based upon. The risk of catching something infectious from any of the dead bodies lying in the Dead House would have been minimal. Especially as the mason’s would not have had reason to touch them. However, the idea of how one caught a disease was quite different in those times. Medical practice and beliefs in the Victorian period were still firmly rooted in medieval practices. Blood letting via leeches was seen as a common remedy for a host of illnesses. The idea that the ills of the body were dominated by the four ‘humours’ of the body was still current. The ‘new’ idea of inoculation was still viewed with suspicion and common hygiene, such as washing one’s hands before performing an operation, was regarded as unnecessary and probably eccentric.

Miasmic

The major belief in how one caught an illness or disease was based upon the miasmic theory. This was the idea that ‘bad air’ caused disease. It was an intriguing idea. At least to a population who had no idea of the existence of germs or viruses, it was quite plausible. So, it was probably this idea that had prompted the complaints from the stonemasons.

That this complaint was seen as reasonable is recognised by the response to it by the Board.

‘the matter having been fully considered by the Board it was ordered that the use of the present dead house be discontinued and that a new one be forthwith built on the vacant ground behind the chapel.’

So the Company Dead House was moved and presumably the stonemasons were now happy.

The new Dead House site?

Another intriguing aspect of this incident is the phrase, ‘on the vacant ground behind the chapel’. Of course whereabouts this ‘vacant ground’ was is a little mystery. It all depends upon where you stand when describing something as ‘behind’ something else. The east of the chapel was already occupied by the catacombs the Company sold. As such it cannot have been there. To the south was a path and to the north was Mr Wilkinson’s land. The Company would not have dared to build anything on his land after their legal tussles in 1847. So by process of elimination the new Dead House must have been built on the land to the west of the chapel.

How long it lasted is open to question. The land to the west of the chapel was sold as burial spaces in the 20th century. The Workhouses themselves terminated their arrangements with the Cemetery in the 1920s. As such it is reasonable to suppose that the Dead House continued to be used for the greater part of the 19th century. It probably fell into abeyance as the Cemetery entered the 20th century. All traces of this building have disappeared. It probably was quite shoddily built. It would have been removed to provide room for more grave spaces.

By the way this is the last in the series of anniversaries. I hope you’ve enjoyed the glimpses into the life of the Cemetery.

Anniversary November 1900

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 September 1852

August 23, 2022 by Pete Lowdenin General, History, Volunteers

The Coming of the Railway

This month’s anniversary is related to the railway that once ran past its gates.

On the 2nd September 1852 the Board received an engineer’s report. This engineer was employed by the York and Midland railway Company. This report detailed a new layout for the proposed branch line to the Victoria Dock. It was the culmination of a campaign waged by the Company to get the railway company to change its mind. And it was a success. Let’s go back a bit and see how this situation came about.

Back in December 1851 the Board received an unexpected and definitely unwanted Christmas present. C.S Todd, the secretary reported that,

‘plans and sections of the proposed Victoria Dock Railway had been lodged with the clerk of the peace for the borough of Kingston upon Hull on Saturday evening and that the proposed railway was projected to pass between the north west corner of the late waterworks and the gates of the Cemetery at a distance of comparatively a few feet and requested instructions as to the course under such circumstances.’

What to do?

Obviously this development caused consternation with the Board. They knew that a branch rail line was in development but they had no idea it would impinge upon the cemetery. That it would run a ‘few feet’ from the entrance would be disastrous for the cemetery. The effect it would have upon the Lodge was also something that had to be taken into consideration. The Board knew it had to do something quickly.

‘It was resolved that a deputation consisting of the chairman, Mr Irving, and Mr Todd do wait upon the Directors of the York and North Midland Railway Company upon the subject of the injury to the cemetery in consequence of the above railway and that in the meantime the solicitor do see the plans lodged and get all the requisite information upon the subject.’

The meetings

The meeting with the Railway Company was soon forthcoming. The meeting took place on the 14th January 1852. To say it wasn’t a success would be putting it mildly. The Railway Company saw no reason to change their plans. If it caused the Cemetery Company problems , well that was no concern of theirs.

The Company employed their own engineer, Mr Clarke, to draw up alternative plans for the route of the railway line. The Board also thought that an extraordinary meeting of the shareholders should be called to inform the proprietor’s of this situation.

This meeting took place on the 20th February.

‘The chairman opened the proceedings by stating succinctly to the meeting what had already been done by the directors respecting the proposed crossing of the railway Company immediately in front of the cemetery’.

He then called upon the secretary to read out the correspondence between the Railway Company and themselves. Sadly none of this survives but the Secretary, in the minute book, does state,

‘that he had received from the directors of the Railway co., a letter by no means satisfactory inasmuch as it bound the company to no fixed mode of arrangement’.

Oh, the wealth of meaning behind his clipped legal words.

The feeling of the meeting was pretty high at this point and the proprietors made their views quite clearly to the Board and the meeting,

‘fully authorised and empowered (the Board) to take such steps for the protection of the Company’s interests in the matter of the railway crossing as they may be advised and deem right and that if necessary they be authorised to proceed to parliament for the purpose of attaining that object.’

Parliament

This was the nuclear option and the Railway Company probably did not see it coming. The issue was raised with the standing committee of transport and by May a resolution was forthcoming. The Railway Company accepted the plans as put forward by the Cemetery Company,

‘and that the railway Company had agreed to pay this company £2500 on condition that certain suggested alterations should be made at the entrance of the cemetery.’

So, a victory for the Cemetery Company. Well, not quite. Firstly the railway line was still to run quite close to the front of the Cemetery. Secondly, what were these ‘alterations’ mentioned?

Getting the builders in

An insight into these was noted in July. The minute books state that ‘extra gate piers’ were needed at the front of the Cemetery. Where and how they would fit into the original scheme is difficult for us now to visualise. The Board empowered John Shields, the superintendent, to,

‘be authorised to purchase the necessary stone requisite for the extra gate piers and also obtain an estimate of the difference of expense to the company between our having gates across the whole of the new entrance or only palisading with a dwarf wall for two openings, both in the present and projected entrance and in the event of the latter plan being adopted then the cost of removing from the present to the new entrance two sets of the gates now at the former and that in the meantime the new walk required for a cab stand to be laid out, planted and completed forthwith.’

So, these were the alterations that needed to be carried out. As I mentioned visualising the changes is difficult as the only image we have before the railway was laid out is from Bevan’s lithograph which is an artist’s impression.

The lithograph shows both the lodge and the chapel built with gates. This is wrong as none of those buildings were built at the time of the lithograph being printed. There would have been some gates at the entrance but what they were like is open to question. In other words we are quite in the dark about these ‘alterations’. Suffice to say that they took place.

One cottage or two?

On the 26th August, a visit took place from Mr Carberry. This was the engineer from the Railway Company. He fully approved of all what the Cemetery Company had done. But there was a sting in his tail for he went on to show the detailed plans he had brought with him.

‘Mr Carbery then laid before the Board the plan and sections for the Gatekeeper’s house, as proposed to be erected by the Railway Company, and the same having been examined by the Board, and it appearing to be the intention of the Railway Company to erect such house in front of the entrance lodge of the Cemetery.

It was determined to make an offer to the Railway Company to build them a gatekeeper’s house on the ground of the Cemetery and corresponding in style and architecture with the Cemetery lodge, on receiving from the railway Company £100 the amount intended to be expended by them, the additional expense to be borne by this company and that in the event of such an offer being accepted another house should be built on the other side of the lodge in uniformity with the gatekeeper’s house and Mr Carbery stated that he would lay such an offer before the Railway Directors and recommend that the same should be carried out as proposed.’

Horrified

The Cemetery Board must have been horrified by the idea that a workmen’s hut should be placed in front of the Lodge. But they knew that they could not resist this insult. That is, unless they upped the ante. This they did by saying that they would build the gatekeeper a house on their land to the west of the Lodge, in the style of the Lodge. This was agreeable to the Railway Company and the gatekeeper of the level crossing for Botanic Gardens Station lived there until its demolition in 1907. That the Cemetery Company then felt the need to add ‘balance’ to their frontage and erect another cottage to the east of the Lodge was simply just showing off. It was used to house the foreman of the Cemetery staff which at this time was a man called George Ingleby. He remained there until the 1890s.

Not top of the range

These cottages were not built to the standard of the Lodge. Simpson and Malone, quality builders and stonemasons, wee employed to construct them. As the bill tendered for payment indicates, the cost for building both cottages was £170 each. The lodge cost much more than that. Still one had to keep up appearances. The final bill for the cottages came to £320 when other aspects were taken into account. The Company probably thought it had done well getting 320 knocked off the price.

And so we come to that date in September 1852. The anniversary of the coming of the railway to the Cemetery. At the meeting,

‘A letter was then read from Mr Gray, the secretary of the York and North Midland Railway Company, accepting the offer made to Mr Carbery as to building the gatekeeper’s house on the Cemetery grounds provided his company would give to the Railway Co. a lease of the house for 21 years and after the expiration of that period agree not to terminate the tenancy unless upon giving 6 months’ notice and repaying the said sum of £100 and the matter having been discussed it was resolved that this Board do approve of such an arrangement and that the secretary be requested to communicate with the Railway co.’s secretary in order to carry out the same.’

And there the matter was resolved.

The final cost

However, was it worth it? Was the proximity of the railway line to the front of the Cemetery that important? We are not in a position to judge whether the moving of the track bed by a few feet was so vital to the interests of the Cemetery. Obviously the Company thought it was. But was it worth it? Ah, that’s good question, especially knowing how things turned out for the Cemetery.

Firstly we have no idea what the cost was for the erection of the extra gate piers but it was a cost the Company had no need to indulge in at that time. Secondly, we do know how much the erection of the cottages cost and that was £320. Yes, they were a fixed asset and they received rent from them but it was a cost that was unnecessary. Thirdly, parliamentary time does not come cheap and the cost of that was £850 5s 1d. This is a considerable sum. The cost of buying the entire site for the Cemetery was only just over £5000. And then we have the cost of the new gates, ordered from Thompson and Stather for £53 10s.

So, overall a cost of northwards over £1200. The Bank of England inflation estimator reckons this sum would be worth £116,966 today. Now that’s quite a tidy sum to spend because you don’t want to have a railway track next door. Some people might say that about having a Cemetery next door. There’s no accounting for taste.

Anniversary July 1857

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 Chairmen

May 23, 2022 by Pete Lowdenin General, History, Volunteers1 Comment

Like most businesses the management of the day to day running of a company can usually be left to middle management. That’s why such people are employed. However, in the case of policy and investment, the board of directors usually takes on those decisions. The decisions regarding the strategic running of the Cemetery were and are taken in the board room. And the ruler of the board room is usually the chairman of the company. This is a short history of two of the chairmen of the Hull General Cemetery Company.

William Irving, John Pearson Bell and John Solomon Thompson were the first three chairs of the company. John S. Thompson was discussed last month in the Anniversary item. Anniversary 1859

This month let’s concentrate upon the other two men mentioned above. All of these men were of the original shareholders of the Company when it was established. No other chair could make that claim. These three were part of that group who had the original vision. For that we should salute them.

William Irving

The first Chairman was William Irving junior. Dave Morecambe, who is a descendant of William, wrote about this man in a post last year. The Irving Family

Suffice to say that he was the chair at the provisional meeting in March 1845, held in Bowlalley Lane. When the Company became a viable entity he was replaced by John Solomon Thompson. Whether this was because of pressure of work with his own business one does not know. He still remained on the Board of Directors. When Thompson resigned he took up the chairman’s role once again. This was on the 7th June 1859. His period of chairmanship was to become an eventful period in the life of the Cemetery. Anniversary 1859

The first chapel in Western Cemetery

William was instrumental in having the first chapel built in what was to become Western Cemetery. The foundation stone of this chapel was laid in October 1859. In a long, and no doubt to the Local Board of Health (LBOH) members in the crowd, insensitive speech he commented,

‘They were met to lay the foundation stone of a building to be used as a chapel on ground to be appropriated to the use of the entire borough for the interment of the dead and he might be permitted to say that, in making that offer the cemetery company was not asking the inhabitants of the town to accept from their hands a property which would not reflect any credit on those who had long been engaged in carrying out the project.

Then he remembered what that place was 12 or 13 years ago. A marshy flat without shrub or tree and then when they looked at the beautiful grounds which they all experienced such pleasure in passing through he thought the reverse of credit was due to those who made such a change.

William went on to say

He did trust the town would consider that the company in handing over to them a property like that for the interment of the dead and undertaken to keep it in proper repair and condition were conferring a favour. It had already become a city of the dead and there were not less than 6000 interments there up to the present time.

The company from first to the last of their design, had only at heart the thought of presenting to their town’s people a place where they could be laid with pleasurable feelings and which would prove an ornament to the borough.’

He presented a silver trowel to the mayor, Martin Samuelson, the owner of an iron foundry. This factory was situated on what eventually became known as Sammy’s Pint and where now sits The Deep. On the blade of the trowel it was inscribed, just in case, the Corporation didn’t quite get the message,

‘Hull General Cemetery Company. The foundation stone of the chapel on ground appropriated to the LBOH as the burial board for the borough was laid by the worshipful the mayor, Martin Samuelson esq; 3^rd of October, 1859.’

Pearson

Of interest was that in the company commemorating this event stood Zachariah Pearson. He was there in his role as Sheriff. I wonder if he didn’t look around him that day and see what a pleasant place it was and perhaps the idea of a public park was germinated. One can hope so. Finally, Martin Samuelson was given the chance to reply and then the assorted notables in the audience did a very sensible thing. They sat down to a luncheon that was,

‘provided near the gates of the grounds and after the ceremony of the day the company adjourned thither.’

All that talking can raise a thirst.

The fatal mistake

In 1861 William did a foolish thing. However much one looks at it one can’t see any other explanation for it than he threw a ‘hissy fit’. In doing so he condemned the cemetery and the Company to a long, slow, lingering death.

It all started with, to my mind, an innocuous item in a local newspaper. Here it is.

As you can see a fairly typical meeting. Resolutions passed and long winded phrases by politicians signifying nothing. The gist was quite clear enough though. The Hull General Cemetery burial charges were too steep. The new Borough Burial Ground was just another part of the Hull General Cemetery. That the parishioners of Holy Trinity desired and deserved their own burial ground away from the tendrils of the Company. That the churchwardens of that parish should continue to lobby Sophia Broadley for the patch of land on Hessle Road that would become Division Road Cemetery. In essence the usual stuff. So why did William get so wound up about this?

Church versus the Company

For William to take exception to this was foolish. The church authorities had long hated the Cemetery. It had taken much of their earnings from them by providing burial spaces. The Churches had resented this even though their own burial grounds were disgusting and immoral. The plan to seek another burial ground for Holy Trinity had been around before the idea of the Hull General Cemetery was mooted. Once, in 1847, it had almost seemed likely it would happen. However, at a parishioner’s meeting, the idea was voted down as the costs were seen as too prohibitive.

Now with the emergence of the Borough Burial Ground, later to become the nucleus of Western Cemetery, the church authorities thought they would try again. They also knew that Sophia Broadley had a poor opinion of the Company as it had been tardy in paying its debts to her brother, and after his death, to her.

William must have known that even if the new site was acquired in the near future it would be some time before it could function. To get annoyed about this was folly. If it had just been this perhaps it would have all passed off quietly. Sadly, the matter didn’t end there.

The Corporation drops its opposition

A further news item later that month increased William’s ire.

Again, one has to ask, what could have caused William to lose his temper here. To answer that let’s look at the recent past. Back in October William had made a speech already referred to. In that speech he had stated that the grounds of the Borough Burial Ground were ‘handed over’ to the Corporation and were ‘conferring a favour’ on the population of Hull.

As recorded earlier he had gone on to say,

‘The company from first to the last of their design, had only at heart the thought of presenting to their town’s people a place where they could be laid with pleasurable feelings and which would prove an ornament to the borough.’

Betrayal?

This latest news item must have seemed to him to throw those words back in his face. To his mind I would suggest that he could not understand why the Corporation would act in this way. For it would have been the final paragraph of the news item that would have exercised him the most. For now the Corporation were appearing to want to set up a rival to not only the Company’s grounds but also their own. Under the Public Health Act of 1848 the Local Board of Health regulated burials in its district or parishes. As such it could stop any such burial ground being opened. Such as the one Holy Trinity desired to implement. Yet here, it appeared, they would ‘withdraw their opposition’ to this new burial ground. To William this must have seemed like a betrayal.

Why?

Why would the Corporation act against its own vested interests? To William there was only one answer; the Corporation, especially the LBOH, and the Cemetery Company had a long history of distrust. Here was just another attack from them. He obviously felt that whatever trust between the two sides engendered by the opening of the Borough Burial Ground was now gone.

And here he did a foolish thing. He wrote to the Corporation offering to sell them the Borough Burial Ground. He did this without consulting his fellow directors. The letter was faithfully recorded in the minute books of the Company. What isn’t recorded is the reaction of his fellow directors to this other than their acquiescence to his fait accompli.

The letter

Here is the letter.

‘To the Burial Committee, LBOH 8/5/1861

Gentlemen, I have read with surprise the report of your board meeting on the 29^th ult and the resolution passed on the occasion. It appears to me that your board is dealing with the burial question have not fairly considered the rights of the Cemetery Company.

At the request of your board the company entered into an arrangement to provide 5 acres of land, then let off as gardens, as and for the place of burial for the inhabitants of the borough; to lay out the same as an ornamental cemetery and also to erect a suitable chapel thereon; and when the ground should be found insufficient the cemetery engaged to provide another suitable and adjoining piece of land and set it apart in the same way for your board.

The cost

These works have been carried out by the company at a cost of £1328 exclusive of land.

The company have justified their part in this agreement to the letter, and also to the satisfaction of your board as the following resolution of the 5/5 1860 will prove Copy of letter from burial board written above, motion moved by Mayfield, seconded by Richardson.

The company, in expending their money to meet the requirements of the board naturally looked to a fair return in the shape of interest on the outlay but your board’s resolution of the 29^th ult renders it hopeless. The company think that in arriving at such a decision your board were wholly regardless of the position of the company with your board under the arrangement referred to the effect of your resolution being to deprive this company of the whole or a large part of their anticipation.

The offer to purchase the cemetery

Under these circumstances. I have to suggest whether the proper course for the Local Board of Health to adopt would be to purchase the ground included in the arrangement and thus, by taking the whole affair into their hands, release the cemetery company from their present unsatisfactory position, brought about as it has been by the action of your board.

Should the above suggestion to purchase meet with your views and should your board decide on adopting it, you would then be in a position to provide a family burial place in the board’s cemetery for the fees alone, which you can regulate at your pleasure and thus preserve the management of burials under your own control.

To carry out the suggestion the cemetery company would be willing to sell your board the land included in the arrangement on the following terms, subject to such regulations for preserving unity of design and uniformity of appearance as might be mutually agreed upon.

The purchase price for the site

Say 5 acres of land at £315 per acre (the cost to the company £1575. Amount expended by the company in laying out, draining, planting and erecting a new chapel to meet the requirements of the burial board £1328. Total £2903.

The company would grant a perpetual right of road through the present cemetery, the board contributing their proportion of maintaining it in good order.

The company think that they are fully justified in laying their suggestion before your committee, satisfied that they are entitled to their due consideration at the hands of your board for the large (and as far as they, the company are concerned, unnecessary) outlay they have incurred for the convenience of your board, and they would urge upon the board, through your committee, the necessity under existing circumstances. If your board’s arranging either to purchase the ground as suggested, or to give such compensation as may be mutually agreed upon.

William’s conclusion

In conclusion I may state that the object of the promoters of the cemetery company was to provide for the inhabitants of Hull what so much needed by them, a place of burial for all sects and denominations; to secure to all classes of the community the means of decent and undisturbed sepulture according to the rights of their own religious faith, and to put an end to intramural interments. This has been the aim of the company from its foundation to the present time and it was with this view, and not with the expectation of pecuniary gain that the arrangement with your board was entered into.

Yours

Wm Irving’

Westward No

With this letter William effectively sealed off any hopes of the expansion of the Cemetery to the west.

Naturally enough this letter caused some surprise with the Corporation and they did not respond immediately. It’s possible that further discussions were taking place that are not recorded.

On the 3rd July the minute books record that a vestry meeting had taken place for Holy Trinity and that the decision to buy the Division Road site was passed. As such the Board decided to wait on developments.

By the 28th August things had moved. William had had two meetings with the Local Board of Health with regard to selling them the land. From these meetings the cost of purchasing the land and chapel was priced at £2903. A poor agreement by the Company but they were hamstrung by William’s letter. Later it was costed out that the Company had lost money on the deal. The sale was finalised on the 28th March 1862.

The sale takes place

On the 5th March 1863 at the AGM it was stated that,

‘The sale of the west end was reported. It was also stated that the purchase price had cleared the company of its debts. However, it was also reported that the land that was sold did not make a profit but only broke even in terms of both its cost and the renovating the company had made.’

And this was without taking into account the closing off of any expansion of the Cemetery in that direction.

William’s death

William continued to be the chairman of the Company until his death on the 27th May 1883. A resolution was passed at the first Board meeting after his death, It read,

‘That the board of directors hereby record their sense of the very valuable services rendered by the late Mr William Irving, in the promotion of this company, (of which he was one of its first directors and its first chairman) and of his zeal and ability in advocating its interests as a director from its formation and his attention and uniform courtesy as its chairman for the last 24 years. The board of directors beg to tender to the family of their late esteemed chairman their deep sympathy in their present bereavement.’

On the 2nd August 1883 the Board received a letter from Thomas Stratten thanking them for their sympathy for the family at that time. Thomas Stratten was the co-executor of William’s will.

John Pearson Bell

William was replaced by John Pearson Bell. Born in Hull in 1809, he had studied at Glasgow University and the London Medical School to become a doctor. Once qualified he had returned to his native town. In April 1836 he married Louisa Lucy Bowdler. He lived in the South Myton district of Hull. This had some good areas such as Lister Street, where he lived, and English Street. It also had some particularly bad areas. It was known in Hull as the Potteries and some houses were little more than workmen’s huts left over from the brick-making days.

In 1847 he was one of a number of authors of a small pamphlet entitled, ‘The Health of Hull’. In this work, compiled with other doctors, the authors had shown how Hull was poorly equipped to deal with any outbreak of disease. This was to be shown to be tragically true two years later when an outbreak of cholera struck.

Chartism

The following year, in 1848, Dr Bell also raised the issue of Chartism. A life long Tory, he recounted to a local newspaper how shocked he had been when he entered someone’s shop to find a petition.

He never did manage to get to the bottom of this and in later years I’m sure he found the whole episode humourous.

John was elected to the Board of Directors of the Company in March 1849. He was influential in the negotiations that took place with the Local Board of Health when that body was trying to buy the Cemetery.

The election of 1852

Around the same time he gave evidence to a parliamentary commission. This had been set up to investigate the corrupt practices that were alleged to have taken place in the election of 1852. This scandal led to Hull not being represented in parliament for two years. (It will come as no surprise to many that I am writing a book about this scandal).

The allegation regarding Dr. Bell was that he gave money to people to vote Tory. One allegation was that he gave money to one voter to buy a litter of pigs. He denied this and other allegations. John said that at no point was he involved in handling any monies. He had acted simply as a Tory election worker. In one exchange where he was the witness he explained the closest he had come to bribing a person in Cottingham to vote,

The sanatorium

In 1858 his daughter, Lucy Ann, married Henry Soulby. He also was a medical practitioner and by the 1881 census he and his wife were living at Waverley House, Waverley Street with her parents. In 1861 he and Sir Henry Cooper opened a sanatorium on Beverley Road. The advert for it was quite refined,

Throughout this period Dr Bell, John Solomon Thompson and other directors were trying to reach an agreement with the landowner to the north of the cemetery. This landowner William Watkinson Wilkinson had long been unfriendly to the Cemetery. If truth be told his animosity was justified. When the cemetery opened they had trespassed upon his land and cut some of his trees down. Since that time a temporary truce had existed but open warfare was rarely far from erupting.

The 1854 Act

This ‘peace’ had not been helped by the 1854 Act of Parliament the Company had gained. In that they had been given the right to extend northwards on to Mr Wilkinson’s land. He could not oppose this compulsory purchase of his land directly but he could negate it at his leisure. In June 1857 things reached a critical point as the minute books show,

‘The solicitor produced a valuation by Mr Wilkinson of the land adjoining the cemetery and reported that he had forwarded a copy thereof to Mr Earnshaw, solicitor for the owner of the land and had a reply from that gentleman declining to accept the Mr Wilkinson’s valuation as the price of such land and the matter having been discussed and Mr George Wilkinson having explained to the board the grounds on which he arrived at his valuation it was moved by the chairman, seconded by Dr Bell that £200 per acre be offered as the price of the land to be clear of all encumbrances except tithe rents.’

Mr George Wilkinson, was the surveyor employed by the Company. He was not related to the landowner Mr. W. W. Wilkinson who had by now passed away. However his estate was managed by his wife who obviously felt it her duty to delay and stop the Company from getting the land.

Another mistake

At the AGM in March 1858 the Chairman’s report spoke of this situation, and once again a strategic mistake was made.

‘The purchase of the land too also remains in abeyance. As our directors have, however, given the owners the necessary notice of their intention and of their wish to have a price named; and not succeeding in this, they instructed Mr Wilkinson, the surveyor, to make a survey and valuation of the land sought to be bought, for the Board’s future guidance, and whose report (confirming your directors views as to its value) is as follows.

‘I have examined the land situate at Newland Tofts, in the parish of Cottingham, adjoining on the north side of HGC belonging to the devises of the late Mr W. Wilkinson esq. and I am of the opinion that the value of the same is £165 per acre or thereabouts, the purchaser paying the tithe commutation rent charge of £3 2s 4d per annum, whether the said rent charge be a little more or less, according to the average price of corn. The price of the 14 acres, 2 roods and 9 perches at this valuation will be £2,401 15s 7d’ signed Mr G. Wilkinson

‘No further steps’

The vendors and their solicitors however having declined to negotiate on Mr Wilkinson’s valuation your directors have taken no further steps in this matter. – It now remains to be considered whether, under existing circumstances it will be prudent to take the next steps pointed out by the land clauses consolidation Act viz; to require the sheriff to give notice to summon a jury to assess the value and compensation for severance, and this step your board does not at present see it prudent, being desirous now, as they have always been desirous, of effecting an amicable arrangement if possible.’

Nowhere to expand

In not acting in trying to gain this land they effectively stopped expansion to the north. As we have seen within a few years they had lost the chance to expand westwards. The Cemetery was enclosed to the south and east by roads. Without new land to sell grave spaces it had to die. That the directors failed to see this, or chose to ignore this fact, is hard to understand.

By 1859 Dr Bell was elected as Deputy Chair. In 1875 he became a J. P. and magistrate. In 1883 he became the Chair of the Company on the death of William Irving.

He was lucky that in his three years as chair there were no serious issues to deal with. The major one was that the Corporation began to develop what is now Spring Bank West and required landowners on either side of the new road to contribute to the ‘making of this public road’. The Company took legal advice which found that they had no legal obligation to do this and therefore they didn’t.

Golden wedding celebrations

In 1886 Dr. Bell and his wife celebrated their Golden Wedding Anniversary. He was presented with a bust as a gift, commissioned by his Freemason Lodge, and executed by William Day Keyworth. He presented his wife with a diamond ring. Just a few short months after this he died.

Dr Bell’s death

Dr, Bell’s death was noted in the minute books by his fellow Directors,

‘Mr Oldham, the deputy chair, having alluded to the loss the company had sustained by the death of their esteemed chairman Dr. Bell which took place on the 26^th ultimo; and the directors being desirous of recording their sense of the valuable services rendered by Dr Bell to the company and of tendering their sympathy with his family in their bereavement

It was resolved that the board of directors of the HGCC herby record their sense of the very valuable services rendered by the late Dr Bell in the promotion of the company (of which he was one of the original trustees) and of his zeal and ability in advocating its interest as a director for over 37 years and as chairman during the last 3 years. The directors beg to tender to Mrs Bell and the family their deep sympathy in the bereavement sustained by them through his death.’ A copy of this resolution sent to family.’

Conclusion

With the death of John Pearson Bell the next chairman was not one of the originators of the cemetery. The baton had now been passed on to the ‘next generation’. Some of the originators of the cemetery were still there in the board room. However they would not and could not lead the project any longer. Their time had passed.

It could be argued however that whoever took over, the cemetery’s time had also passed. It had lost its way and could no longer expand. The role of all the future chairmen of the Company could now be best described as running a continual damage limitation exercise. A sad end to a glorious project.

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 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

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

Anniversary March 1877

February 25, 2022February 25, 2022 by Pete Lowdenin General, History, News, Volunteers2 Comments

This month’s anniversary is interesting. In May 1876 a discussion took place as to whether a clock tower should be built in the grounds or a clock installed in the lodge. The question rattled back and forth for months. By that September the decision was taken to install the clock into the Lodge belfry.

This repair work was to cost £94. 5s which was a considerable sum for a building that was only 30 years old.

The AGM

In March 1877 the decision was ratified at the AGM and the plan was to install the clock and also conduct some repair work to the Lodge as it,

This interaction is interesting in a number of ways. Firstly the decision to repair to the original design shows that the Lodge was something they were proud of. Somewhat different to their feelings in the late 1840s. Then it was obvious from the Company paperwork that the Board were heartily sick of the troubles the Lodge had caused them.

Secondly, it shows the Cemetery Company still wanting to present a good image of itself to the community. The placing of the clock was civic minded. Yes, they may have cloaked this idea with the line, ‘business of the cemetery’ but they knew progress was happening.

By this time, D. P. Garbutt had begun the development of the Avenues. This development, to the Board, was surely just the beginnings of the area the Cemetery occupied becoming more salubrious. Who knows where that may lead?

As such the installation of a clock was a smart move. It was civic-minded enough to appeal, yet it’s cost was small. In essence, a win-win situation for the Company.

Fixing the clock

The Company received a tender for fixing the clock from a Mr George Pickering of Prospect Street. This tender was accepted and the cost of making and installing the clock was £7.

The final cost of repairing the Lodge and installing the clock was a stupendous £124 10s. At this time the Company were still desirous of making a show and if that meant spending money, then so be it.

Later in its long life it would not be so happy to do so.

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 Cemetery Burial Records

January 26, 2022January 29, 2022 by Pete Lowdenin General, News, Talks, Volunteers3 Comments

Some of you may remember that, as part of the rehabilitation of Hull General Cemetery, some research and administrative tasks were to be carried out. It was hoped that when these tasks were completed it would help to raise the profile of the site.

One of those tasks was to transcribe the Cemetery burial records onto an Excel spreadsheet. This would then be placed onto this site so that people could search for their relatives or use it for research for other purposes. We were also going to share this database with the Carnegie Heritage Centre, the East Yorkshire Family History Society and also the Hull History Centre.

https://www.carnegiehull.co.uk/

https://www.eyfhs.org.uk/

https://www.hullhistorycentre.org.uk/home.aspx

Still our aim

That is still our aim. You’ll be glad to know that this exercise is reaching the final stages. It’s about 80% complete. We would like to have it completed by the Heritage Open Days in September this year. Perhaps even have a ‘Grand Opening’ of it at a venue yet to be decided upon.

However, to make that date we would like to ask you to join us in finalising this project.

You will need your own computer and access to the internet. The actual work involved is light but it does need patience and attention to detail.

This project will be invaluable to the City of Hull as well as the professional researcher and the person who just wants to find their ancestor’s grave.

Here’s an example of a burial record so you can see what the job entails. Its from July 1860. As you can see the social history is apparent from the first entry. Rebecca Day dying of fever in Hull Borough Asylum. This building, the last remains of it having been demolished within the last two years, was set at the back of the present HRI. Just think how much more you could find out.

If you want to be part of this project then please contact the FOHGC. We’ll guide you through it and help where its needed.

Hold the front page!

Sorry, I’ve always wanted to write that and this is the closest I can get to it.

I just thought I’d let you know that I will be giving a talk at the Hull Central Library on Saturday, 19th February. The talk may probably be the last time I’ll be doing The Rise and Fall of Hull General Cemetery.

The talk takes place in the old Local Studies Library, known as the James Reckitt room. It starts at 11.00 a.m. and I think there is a charge of £1.

Hope to see you there.

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 February 1847

January 4, 2022January 29, 2022 by Pete Lowdenin General, History

The date above is a very important anniversary for the cemetery. At an Emergency General Meeting (EGM) of the Board some momentous decisions were made. This took place on the 19th of February immediately before the first Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the proprietors of the cemetery. That is the stockholders who owned the cemetery land.

Joint Stock

It perhaps is a good time to explain how the cemetery was run. This was via a mechanism known as a joint stock company. This method was organised in this way. A group of people would buy shares in a prospect or company and by buying these shares those people would actually own the project they bought shares in. The amount of the project they owned depended upon the amount of shares they bought. They exercised this power via the AGM. However the Cemetery Company was run by the Board of Directors who were voted in at the AGM.

The minute books entries

Which is why the anniversary of the EGM on the 19th February 1847 was so important. Here’s the item in the minute books.

Here’s part of the transcript of the above as I know that reading such writing can be tiring.

‘for the purpose of considering the expediency of at once proceeding with the erection of the entrance lodge and gates, as also with the church and catacombs and the best mode of arranging the latter.’

The following page outlined what the Board wanted.

And here, once again, is a transcription of the above.

‘That Mr Broderick be forthwith instructed to prepare (for consideration by the Board) an amended design for the church so as to embrace two places for divine service with catacombs underneath and also for the entrance lodge and the gates and palisades connected there with – the whole of the expense being limited to £3000.’ The Catacombs of Hull General Cemetery

Today’s cost

So £3000 for the Lodge, the Chapel, the Catacombs and the gates and fencing of the Cemetery. Not bad. Of course there has been a bit of inflation since then. A good website called Measuring Worth gives us a rough guide to how much £3000 in 1847 was worth today. http://Measuringworth.com Today that sum would be £280,300. Still not a large amount in my opinion but of course the labour costs would then have been so much less than today.

The anniversary of this decision could be said to have given the structures of the Cemetery their lives. Sadly, most of these have gone and we are left with only the three of the gates and a small remainder of the walls. The Catacombs of Hull General Cemetery These are now grade two listed with Historic England which provides a measure of protection now. What a pity the rest was lost.

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

Edward Nequest

December 27, 2021December 27, 2021 by Pete Lowdenin General, History4 Comments

Edward Nequest was part of a very select group of people. There were only four superintendents of Hull General Cemetery.

John Shields was the first. He and Cuthbert Brodrick laid out the paths and plots of the cemetery prior to its opening in 1847. John Shields died suddenly in 1866. He was succeeded by Edward. He himself retired in 1891. Michael Kelly took over until 1944. After that Michael’s daughter Cicely Kelly continued in this post until her enforced retirement in the 1950s. There were no more superintendents.

Edward’s birth

Edward Nequest was born in Hull in 1823. The image below shows his baptism at Holy Trinity that year.

In the second column below, which may be difficult to read, the name Edward is inserted. This is followed by ‘S of’ denoting ‘son of’. The registrar also had difficult with the surname. The correction is in brackets. Edward’s parents were Peter and Mary. Their address is given as Myton and the father’s occupation is recorded as a mariner. The incumbent of Holy Trinity at the time was John Bromby.

This vicar had the longest tenure of any incumbent of this parish. He became the vicar of Holy Trinity in 1797 and stepped down from the post in 1867 after 70 years service. He died the following year and is buried in the churchyard of North Ferriby.

Edward was the second son from this marriage. The first son was also called Peter and he was born in 1821 and baptised at the same church.

Home

We have no idea of where the Nequest family lived at this time but by the 1841 census we know the family lived in Cogan Street. It still exists but in a truncated form. Clive Sullivan Way now occupies the southern part where Cogan Street stood.

In the 1841 census of Peter Nequest we find him listed as a ‘Stower’, and his wife, Mary, is strangely placed near the end of the family listing. The 1841 census generally is a blunt tool in comparison with later ones. It often rounded the ages of children up or down to the nearest five yearly span. We find that in the 1841 Nequest census both of Peter’s sons’ ages, Peter and Edward, are given as 15 yet Peter would have been 20 and Edward 18 at the time. The younger Peter, as you can see, is listed as an attorney’s clerk. Edward was soon to follow his brother into this profession.

You may also see that Peter the elder has an ‘F’ against his name. That is because he was born in Sweden in 1793 and migrated to Hull. We have no information why he did this. A shrewd guess would be that it may have been due to the Napoleonic Wars and the British blockade of the continent at the time. A mariner would have found work difficult at that time and emigrating to Britain was a way out of this dilemma.

1851 census

By the time of the 1851 census Edward has moved from the family home. He now lived in a small terrace called Ville Terrace off the newly laid out Hessle Road not far from no1. Hessle Road.

Perhaps more importantly for Edward was that he now was married. He had married Ann Plaxton in 1849. He was also a solicitor’s clerk.

Not just any solicitor. He was apprenticed and articled to one of the most famous solicitors in Hull. His employer was Charles Spilman Todd. This man had been instrumental in carrying through the purchase of the cemetery’s grounds. Indeed the first meeting of the provisional committee took place in his office at no.15 Bowlalley Lane.

C.S.Todd as he was known was both the solicitor and secretary for the Company and also was a large shareholder. Still later in his life he was a councillor and became the secretary for the Local Board of Health and eventually he was elected as Sheriff of Hull. The Creation of Hull General Cemetery: Part Two

Shadrach Wride

In the 1840s the first secretary to C.S.Todd was a man called Shadrach Wride. This man is worthy of an article himself.

Baptised in 1796 in Holy Trinity the year before Rev. Bromby took over. Shadrach was the son of a man of the same name. This man had been the foreman of Jackson’s wood yard in the Groves and he ‘luckily’ married the bosses’ daughter. When he died in 1823 he left the business to his son. Whether the business was in a good state or worth anything is open to question.

Sadly the business failed in 1827 and Shadrach Wride entered the Bankruptcy Court. The timber yard was auctioned off. Even the family home on Charterhouse Lane had to be sold.

Debtor’s prison

One has to remember the draconian laws then regarding debts. Today a person who becomes bankrupt can have that burden discharged after two or three years whilst not paying their debts. Not so in Georgian and Victorian times. Charles Dickens’s father was a debtor and was placed in Marshalsea Prison until the debt was repaid. Dickens himself had to work in a blacking factory to help pay this debt at the tender age of 12. This had a marked effect upon the young boy and it came out in his works in later life.

Little Dorrit is almost completely set inside a debtor’s prison. Nicholas Nickelby, Great Expectations and Pickwick Papers all allude or feature the stigma of the debtor’s prison. Shadrach Wride would have used all in his power to avoid being imprisoned for this ‘crime’. That he did so, and was later rehabilitated says a great deal about the man.

Rebuilding his life

After this date Shadrach contented himself in making ends meet by taking on a number of roles. Often cited as an agent for insurance companies and emigration agencies he was still a respected member of society. He was the secretary for the Fish street Church and was part of that committee until his death. His abode was at 15 Spring Bank, on the corner of Spring Street, and this address was often used as a postal address for the Cemetery before the lodge was built.

To show that the ‘Good Old Days’ never really existed the newspaper item below perhaps shows that modern life is typical of what went before.

Mr Wride was also the secretary for the C.S.Todd’s legal practice and therefore the secretary for the Company. The evidence for this is often to be found in the newspapers of the time but also in the records of the Company that still exist.

Shadrach Wride was also listed as the Company secretary on the brass plate that was buried in the foundations of the Lodge at the official opening of the Cemetery in June 1847.

Wride’s death

So the man’s death came as a shock to many parties. Shadrach died on July 25th 1850 as the news item below shows.

He is buried in Hull General Cemetery in compartment 35 only two grave spaces away from his employer C.S.Todd’s own grave. the cause of death is cited as apoplexy. The vacancy he left was filled by Edward Nequest.

Edward’s work

The first we learn of Edward’s new appointment is once again via the local newspaper. This is some five years after Wride’s death. It is obvious that Edward is not taking things for granted, signing himself as pro secretary. The term ‘pro‘ here is standing for pro tem, meaning for the time being. There were no chickens being counted too early here.

By the following March, in a further newspaper item, Edward signs himself as the secretary, so his appointment must have been confirmed.

However whether any such appointment was ever confirmed is open to doubt. Shadrach Wride’s occupation given in the Cemetery’s burial register is ‘agent to the life insurance company‘ even though he had been both C.S.Todd and the Company secretary for at least five years. Edward, when he bought graves in the Cemetery, is listed as ‘Attorney’s clerk’ and this terminology lasted until the mid 1860s. It appears that the Company didn’t like to be tied down.

Domestic issues

But we are getting ahead of ourselves a bit here. Edward, as we know, was a family man and the domestic side of his life needs some explaining. Or at least an attempt should be made for there is one aspect that is a mystery.

Edward Nequest owned three graves in Hull General Cemetery. They are in compartment 105 close to the south side of the cemetery.

Whether he bought them all at the same time is debateable. What we do know was that the first purchase took place in 1850 for on the 3rd October the first burial took place within it. This was of a young girl, Jane Bell. This child was the daughter of ‘the late Robert Bell, Customs Officer’. I have struggled to find a family connection but in vain. The only supposition I have come up with is that Robert Bell may have been a friend and neighbour as the address given is Elizabeth Place, Hessle Road. This was very near to Edward’s own address at the time. I’m afraid this tenuous link is the best I can do.

1861

By the time of the 1861 census Edward had moved house. He now lived at a house in Porter Street with his wife and young daughter Mary Ann.

Sadly, only 2 years later, in the July of 1863, this child was the second burial in this plot. Measles and consumption of the bowels was the cause of death.

Becoming superintendent

In November 1866 John Shields, the first superintendent passed away suddenly. In the following January the Board appointed Edward Nequest to the post of superintendent.

They also decided, short-sightedly, to combine the roles of superintendent and secretary. Seemingly implemented as a cost-cutting measure it alienated their solicitor, the fore-mentioned C.S.Todd who resigned from the Board. When he became the secretary to the Local Board of Health this alienation came back to bite the Company but that is another story. An Anniversary

The minute books

The minute books of the Company record this decision.

‘Special meeting of directors 20/12/66. Present Irving, Bell and Oldham

‘The vacancy occasioned by the death of Mr S. the late superintendent again came under consideration of the board when the question as to the desirability of amalgamating the two offices of secretary and supt., was discussed and it was ultimately unanimously resolved that in the opinion of the board, the time has now arrived when it seems desirable that the two offices of sec., and supt., may be advantageously combined.

It was further resolved that a copy of the foregoing resolution be handed to C.S.Todd esq, the secretary and that the directors have an early interview with him on the subject. 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 it was unanimously resolved that taking into consideration Mr Nequest’s long and satisfactory connection with the company the situation of supt., and registrar be offered to him at the salary of £110 per annum with the use of the lodge and this his duties to commence on Tuesday the first of January 1867.’

This appointment was recorded in the local press.

A Company Man

It’s fair to say that Edward threw himself into his work, much like John Shields had done, and Michael Kelly after him would do. Edward often represented the Company at investigations and on committees. In 1868 he applied to Cottingham Local Government Board for them to provide two lamps outside of the Cemetery which they agreed to. This would have been the first street lighting on what was to become Princes Avenue.

He was less successful in 1873 when he asked them to repair the road outside the cemetery.

In 1869 he attended the Local Burial Board Committee and spoke, mentioning that new burial ground of the Corporation ( Old Western Cemetery) was rapidly filling up. The same year he had to explain that it was Company policy to give visiting clergymen a surplice at the office and not to give them a surplice at the graveside as one irate clergyman demanded. The Burial Board sided with Edward.

An important meeting

A more important meeting that Edward attended took place before this appointment as superintendent. On the 21st April 1860 the Hull Advertiser recorded his intervention into a meeting of the South Myton Guardian Society.

In the meeting, which appeared to have been called as to whether the parishioners of Holy Trinity should pay for a new burial ground, Edward was forthright. The snippets below, taken from a very long article, show that Edward was a bright, eloquent speaker who was passionate about the Cemetery.

Still later, in defending the Hull General Cemetery’s charges,

Needless to say that the parishioners voted against having a rate set against them for the purchase of a burial ground. The result of this was that Castle Street continued to be used for burial for a further year until Sophia Broadley donated the land to lay out Division Road cemetery in 1862.

1871 and after

By 1871 his family had increased and living in the lodge must have become a bit tiresome.

As we know, three years later he requested that he be allowed to move from the lodge. Anniversary January 1874 This request was accepted by the Board and he moved out to a larger house. This was at 7, Zoological Terrace, situated on the corner of Norwood street and in between the Swedenborgian Church on one side and St Jude’s on the other corner of Norwood Street.

It is the building with the group of men outside of it on the pavement in this image. Here’s another image and it is the house with the steeple behind it.

Edward continued to live at this address until his death in the 20th century. By the time of the 1881 census there had been no new additions to the family but as you can see below Elizabeth had married.

A terrible decade

She had married John Frederick Byron and had borne him a son, Frederick Edward the following year. Her husband was still living with his parents at 47, Stanley Street and he lists himself as a ‘foreman of wine and spirits warehouse’.

In the 1880s his daughter, now Elizabeth Byron, lost three children. Ann on the 22nd of October 1885. She was 5 days old. The cause of death was put as premature birth. The following year, in October 1886, Ellen died at the age of 12 days old. Her cause of death was listed as disease of the spine. And in the February of 1889 another daughter, Lillie, died at the age of four from croup.

Culminating a terrible decade for Edward in the September of 1889 he lost his wife Ann. She died of cancer of the liver. Her death took place at 2, Albion Place, Quay Road, Bridlington. Cancer is rarely a sudden death and I surmise that Ann was away from home, probably with Edward, as a holiday / leave taking for both of them.

Going through the motions

It’s fair to say that the loss of his wife was a disaster for Edward. I would suppose that he no longer wanted to be associated with death for it now held painful memories for him. Sadly, worse was to come.

In the meantime, in the September of 1891, he offered his resignation from his post as Superintendent and Secretary for the Hull General Cemetery.

Its arrival is recorded in the Company minute books,

‘Read a letter that from Mr Nequest tendering his resignation of the office of secretary as and from 30 instance. Resolved that such a resignation be accepted. Read a letter from a Mr Kelly of Granville Street, Hull, for the office of secretary and superintendent rendered vacant by the resignation of Mr Nequest and after considering the same and it appearing that Mr Kelly was suitable person to fill the office it was resolved that Mr M Kelly be and he is hereby appointed secretary and superintendent on the terms named in his application.’

His daughter

Edward’s daughter by now had a family of three children. Frederick Edward now aged 10, Charles aged 8 and Gertie, born that year. Her husband, John Frederick, now listed himself as a dock labourer, so a definite coming down in the world for the family. They lived at Ebenezer Place, Raywell Street which was off Charles Street.

By the 1901 census John Frederick is nowhere to be seen and Elizabeth is listed as a widow. Indeed this is strange record for all the inhabitants are simply designated with initials.

The truth of the matter is that John Frederick had absconded to the United States where he proceeded to make a new life for himself and scant regard for his past life.

His mother had died in 1883 and his father died in 1894. By 1895 he had emigrated. two years later he committed bigamy by marrying Ruth Newman on the 15th September 1897 in Salt Lake City. I say committed bigamy but Salt lake City was and is the home of the Mormon religion and polygamy is accepted and recognised there. Did John F Byron become a Mormon? We have no way of knowing. Suffice to say that he had six more sons and five more daughters whilst in the USA so we can say he embraced his second wife if not the religion. He died in 1918 in Idaho.

Her illness

We have no idea why he absconded. It could well have been that his wife Elizabeth was ill. She eventually died from locomotor ataxia. This disease was and is extremely problematic and embarrassing for sufferers. Predominantly it is a disease of the spine. It manifests itself in locomotion issues such as jerky walking and disorientated movements which give the appearance of being drunk. Sufferers need to constantly check where there are limbs are. It is often a symptom of Tabes Dorsalis which itself is often a symptom of tertiary syphilis.

Elizabeth died in 1903. She is buried in grave number 14765, the bottom burial plot in the image shown earlier. You many note that the other grave plots are classed as B whilst Elizabeth’s is D. She is the sole occupant of that grave plot. I’m sure, like me, you can hypothesise about why this occurred but it is only guesswork and perhaps we should leave this tragedy untroubled.

1911 and beyond

The 1911 census shows Edward living in his home with his son Edward and a housekeeper. The house was spacious consisting of eight rooms and both the Edwards appear to be living a comfortable life.

The elder Edward died on the 3rd July 1920 at the age of 97.

His son then married! At the age of 56!! Once again we can wonder at this turn of events. Did the younger Edward love someone whom his father disapproved? We shall never know. And once again tragedy stalks this family. The younger Edward survived his father by less than five months, dying in the December of the same year.

He left a gross estate of £3,301 and personal wealth of £731 to his new bride Mary Elizabeth (nee Young) who continued to live in 183 Spring Bank. On February 2nd 1949, Mary Elizabeth Nequest died. She was cremated and her ashes were buried alongside her husband and her in-laws in grave number 14363. With her death this line of the family ended.

Obituary

Finally let us leave with the obituary that the Hull Daily Mail saw fit to print about Edward.

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