In part 4 of ‘The Hannah Chronicles’, Hannah was involved an incident with a man named Samuel Steele. One of the newspapers reporting the incident, mentioned that William Lamb was a cousin of Steele’s wife.
Samuel Steele was the husband of William Lamb’s cousin
I have since found out that there is another family connection.
Three years after William Lamb’s grandfather Daniel Toon died, his grandmother Mary Kennah, married a man named Robert Fellows. (Note: Since Daniel died before William was born, he may have even looked upon Robert as his grandfather.)
When expanding William Hirst’s tree, I found that his mother’s maiden name was also ‘Fellows’. Coincidences like this need to be explored, and in this case, it turned out that William Hirst’s mother, Ann Fellows, was the sister of Robert Fellows.
William Hirst’s mother was the sister of Robert Fellows
William Hirst’s parents even appear to be witnesses at Mary’s marriage to Robert.
Marriage record showing Thomas and Ann Hirst as witnesses at the marriage of Mary Toon (nee Kennah) to Robert Fellows
When Mary Kennah married Robert Fellows in 1849, her eldest daughter Sarah Toon was about 15 years old. Seven years later, in 1856, Sarah married William Hirst, the son of Robert’s sister.
So, Sarah Toon’s husband was her stepfather’s nephew.
This also means that when Hannah Bates was fighting with ‘William’s cousin’s husband’, she was also fighting with his step-grandfather’s nephew!
Newspapers are ‘da bomb‘ for finding out information about relatives but it’s important to widen searches for different spellings, variations and even other family members. This time, searching just the name Rollett (it helps that it’s not too common), brought up an article I hadn’t seen before:
Nottingham Journal, 20 March 1876, p4 c2
USING OBSCENE LANGUAGE – Hannah Rollett was charged with using obscene language in Walker lane, on Wednesday last, to the annoyance of Sarah Ann Rollett, and fined 40s. and costs, or, in default, one month with hard labour. -Ann Wright was charged with a similar offence in the Market place and Bold lane, to the annoyance of John Rollett, on Wednesday last, and fined 40s. and costs, or, in default, one month with hard labour.
Nottingham Journal, 20 March 1876, p4 c2
Typical of the Hannah I’d come to know and love, and interesting that it involved Alexander’s sister, Sarah Ann, again. But underneath, the next case also involved a Rollett and I was wondering if there was a connection when I noticed the name ‘Ann Wright’. I know that Hannah had a sister, Ann, who married a Wright in 1872. Could this be her? Were they all arguing together – siblings against siblings? And who was this John Rollett?
It was only a couple days later that a different search revealed more information:
Derby Mercury, 22 March 1876, p2 c5
Hannah Rollett was charged in her absence with using obscene language to the special annoyance of Sarah Ann Rollett, her sister-in-law, in Workhouse-yard, Walker-lane. -Fined 40s. and costs, or one month’s imprisonment.
Ann Wright was charged in her absence with using obscene language to the special annoyance of Alexander Rollett, the husband of the last defendant. The affair took place in consequence of the complainant demanding his child, which had been under Wright’s care. -Fined 40s. and costs, or one month’s imprisonment, with hard labour.
Derby Mercury, 22 March 1876, p2 c5
Derby c1899 map showing places mentioned in the articles (Blue line marks Bold Lane)
The extra details indicate that this was indeed a ‘family affair’ so it’s more than likely this Ann Wright was in fact, Hannah’s sister. We know that her first daughter, Sarah Jane, was ‘under Wright’s care’ in 1881 where they appear in the census together. Sarah Jane would have been aged 4 at the time of this article but it could also refer to his son, Richard William who would have been nearly 2 years old. By 1881, ‘William’ was living with his father and his live-in-lover, Selina Banks. [Hannah was 3 months pregnant with John William at the time.]
1881 census – Bonsall – Sarah Jane living with her aunt, Ann1881 census -Derby (Nun St) – Richard William living with his father, Alexander1881 census – Derby (Willow Row) – John William living with his mother, Hannah
It seems a bit rich that Alexander and his sister would take his wife and sister-in-law to court based on their language – they were hardly beacons of modesty. The move seemed designed to antagonise but it is hard to say who was in the right here as neither parent seemed like a great role model. A few months later, Alexander was involved in a ‘murderous assault on a policeman‘; the next year, Hannah committed her own ‘murderous attack‘; and a few years later, Hannah and Alexander would again argue over custody of their children which caused newspapers to report on their ‘Shocking Immorality’.
Hannah Bates/Rollett and William Henry Lamb were not ones to live life quietly it seems. In January of 1886, they were subjects of a raid where it was found they, along with some neighbours, were keeping a ‘disorderly house’.
At the Derby Borough Police-court, to-day… Edward and Patience Helmsley, husband and wife were charged on a warrant with keeping a disorderly house at House 7, Court 3, Willow-row, between January 16th and 24th…
-Similar penalties were imposed in a similar charge against William Lamb and Hannah Rollit, of House 4, Court 3, Willow-row. Detective Clay stated that most of the persons who entered the house were young men. Prisoners, who had lived together for two years, were found guilty. There were five minor convictions against the man, and six against the woman.
Nottingham Evening Post, 27 Jan 1886, p2 c4
The neighbours in House 7 appear to have held the most serious charge as they appear first in reports.
The Nottingham Journal (28 Jan 1886) was less euphemistic when they reported a “RAID ON BROTHEL KEEPERS”.
Upon being read the warrant, Patience Helmsley had asked “Why don’t you do them up No. 1 court as well?” which indicates this was a relatively common thing in the court houses of Willow Row. “In consequence of complaints he and Sergeant Dexter watched the houses in this this court”…
Nottingham Journal, 28 January 1886, p6 c1Nottingham Journal, 28 January 1886, p6 c2
Hannah Rolle[t] and William Lamb were charged with a similar offence at house No.2, Court 3, Willow-row. -Detective Clay spoke to arresting the prisoners who denied keeping a brothel. -They had lived in the house about three or four months. On the 16th inst. four women and three men entered the house; on the 21st two men and two women went in the house; on the 23rd two women and nine men went into the house. The prisoners lived together as man and wife. The prisoners were about when this state of things was going on. -The man denied the charge, but the woman admitted the offence. -The prisoners had each been previously convicted, and they were now fined £5 and costs, or one month’s imprisonment with hard labour.
Nottingham Journal, 28 January 1886, p6 c2
Interesting that in both cases, the men plead ignorance:
In defence the male prisoner [Edward Hemsley] said he did not know anything about the “affair,” as he was at work every day. -The female said it was all her fault. He did not want her to keep such a house, and she wished she never had. If the Bench sent them to gaol, her husband would get the “sack.” If they would let her off she would lead a better life.
Nottingham Journal, 28 January 1886, p6 c2
Derbyshire Advertiser and Journal, 29 January 1886, p3 c5
…William Lamb and Hannah Rollett were charged on a warrant with keeping a disorderly house in Court 3, Willow-row between the 16th and 23rd Jan. -Detective Clay gave evidence of a similar nature to that in the previous case and said that he and police-sergeant Dexter apprehended the prisoners on the previous night, when they emphatically denied the charge.- The woman, who had been convicted six times before, pleaded guilty. The man had been in trouble on five previous occasions, and he now denied the charge.- They were fined £5 and costs each, with the alternative of a month’s imprisonment.
Derbyshire Advertiser and Journal, 29 January 1886, p3 c5
The Sheffield Indpendent (28 January 1886) gave much the same information but mentions the “Prisoners… had lived together for two years…” even though we have evidence that they had been living together for around four. [see previous post]
Sheffield Independent, 28 January 1886, p2 c5
It’s unclear whether Hannah or William opted to pay the fine or take the imprisonment. I should note at this point that despite all these convictions against Hannah over the years and reports of serving time, I’ve not yet been able to find any jail record under any of her names.
Despite her claim that she would “lead a better life”, newspapers show that Patience Helmsley was charged with the same offence a few years later in 1890 (with double the penalty):
It wasn’t too long after the ‘shocking immorality‘ of 1881 that Hannah Bates/Rollett established a relationship with the significantly younger, William Henry Lamb.
William’s family had lived in the West End area of Derby for generations and he and Hannah soon set up home in one of the court houses in Willow Row. His parents lived in neighbouring Goodwin Street (where William himself was born at number 29), and like his father, William worked as a bricklayer and chimney sweep.
By 1882, Hannah was already referring to William as her husband, and using his surname when she was charged with drunkenness in Willow Row. (William was only 17 years old at this point and Hannah was 25.)
Derby Daily Telegraph, 08 May 1882, p4 c3
–Hannah Lamb was charged with drunkenness in Willow-row.-Prisoner said she was suffering more from passion than drink. Her husband had turned her out of the house.-She was fined 5s. and costs, or seven days’ imprisonment with hard labour.
Derby Daily Telegraph, 08 May 1882, p4c3
From this we can assume they had been living together as ‘man and wife’ despite not being married and that the relationship was quite tumultuous even in their early days together.
The next year, it was William’s turn to be fined for drunkenness:
Derby Daily Telegraph, 03 November 1883, p3 c4
DRUNKENNESS.-William Lamb was fined 10s. and costs for being drunk and disorderly in Willow-row, on Thursday afternoon.–Police-constable Levers proved the case.
Derby Daily Telegraph, 03 November 1883, p3 c4
A few years later, Hannah was summoned for threatening Mary Toon after a quarrel ‘about a cat’:
Derby Daily Telegraph, 07 May 1885, p3 c3
USING THREATS. -Hannah Lamb, a married woman, was summoned for threatening Mary Toon, on the 2nd inst -The parties live in Willow-row, and quarrelled about a cat -The defendant was bound over to keep the peace for 3 months in the sum of £10.
Derby Daily Telegraph, 07 May 1885, p3 c3
Interestingly, William’s mother was a Toon so this Mary could be one of his relatives.
It was only a few months later that both Hannah and William were involved in some kind of brawl with the neighbours:
Derby Daily Telegraph, 25 August 1885 p3 c6
THE VIOLENT ASSAULT IN WILLOW ROW. – Thomas Limbert, John Tearney, and Henry Hill were charged with violently assaulting William Lamb, in court 3, Willow-row, on the night of the 21st instant. -Mr. Briggs defended Tearney and Hill. -The prosecutor stated that he lived in Court 3, Willow row, and knew the prisoners, who live in the same court. On Friday night, about half-past eleven, he went to Limbert’s house. The door was locked, and he shouted “Is our Nan here?” meaning Hannah Rollet. Limbert replied that she was not. Witness then requested to be allowed to look, and Limbert unlocked the door and went outside, and, using some bad language, he asked what witness wanted there. Without getting an answer he struck witness a number of times, and knocked him down. The other prisoners then went up the yard, and said to Limbert, “Give it the –, Tommy.” They then started kicking him whilst he was on the ground. Witness was taken to the Infirmary where he remained until that morning. He had been on friendly terms with the prisoners. He did not kick at the door when he went to Limbert’s house. -Hannah Rollit gave similar evidence. -The defence was that Lamb and Limbert were fighting, when Lamb fetched a sweep’s scraper out, and would have killed Limbert with it had not Hill prevented him. Tearney, it was said, was never within ten yards of the place where the fight took place. -Mr. Briggs called several witnesses, who corroborated the latter statement. -The Bench, having a doubt as regards Tearney, discharged him, Limbert, who had been convicted 15 times before, was sent to gaol for a month, with hard labour, Hill who had 21 previous confictions against him, was sentenced to a similar term.
Derby Daily Telegraph, 25 August 1885 p3 c6
The Derbyshire Advertiser and Journal gave a different account a few days later:
Derbyshire Advertiser and Journal, 28 August 1885, p3 c5
ALLEGED VIOLENT ASSAULT IN WILLOW-ROW. -Jas. Limbert, John Teeney, and Henry Hill were charged with violently assaulting William Lamb, in Court 3, Willow-row, on the previous day. -Police-constable Robinson said that on the previous night he was called to a house in Court 3, Willow-row, by a woman named Rollet. On arriving there he saw the prosecutor who was bleeding from the mouth, and he complained of having been assaulted by three men. Witness did not see any wounds or bruises on him, and consequently told him to summon the men, who had attacked him. The woman Rollet subsequently procured a cab, in which the prosecutor was taken to the Infirmary, and from what the doctor who there examined him stated, the prisoners were apprehended and charged with the offence. Limbert said that Lamb went to his door, and made several unpleasant remarks about his wife. The door was fast, and he commenced kicking it. He (Limbert) then opened the door, and Lamb struck at him, whereupon he retaliated and knocked him down in self-defence. Prosecutor regained his feet, and they then had a fair fight, during which the other men came up, and Lamb ran into his own house. He came out again with a sweep’s broom, with which he struck at them, but after a scuffle they took it from him. -Police-constable Shirley also gave evidence as to Lambert’s condition. -Prisoners were remanded until Monday.
Derbyshire Advertiser and Journal, 28 August 1885, p3 c5
After establishing that Sarah Jane BATES (aka Sally) was a daughter of Hannah Bates, I wanted to know more about her.
The 1939 census gave her birth year as 1872 and so Sarah Jane Bates was easily found in the 1881 census staying as the niece of Edwin Wright in Holly Finnis, Bonsall – but was this our girl? Could Edwin’s wife, Ann be Hannah BATES’ elusive sister, Ann BATES? I needed more evidence to link the two families.
1881 Census – Bonsall
Searching for an Ann Wright brought up her second marriage to an Ebenezer BANNER in 1886. This excited me as Hannah had used the name ‘Ann Banner‘ when she married William Henry LAMB but I’ve never known why. However, even though this bride’s father is also named as James Bates (same as Hannah), there was still a chance it could all be coincidence.
1886 marriage of Ann Wright (nee Bates) to Ebenezer Banner
And then I found Ann’s first marriage record…
1872 marriage of Ann Bates to Edward Wright
Bing, bang, boom!
Witnesses: Alexander Rollett and Hannah Rollett (!!)
This is the proof I need that the 1881 census record is Sarah Jane and the Ann in all these records is Hannah’s sister Ann BATES. [I believe Edward was misrecorded as Edwin in the 1881 census – ‘his mark’ indicates he could likely neither read nor write so wouldn’t know to correct the census taker.] Interestingly, Hannah was also living on Duke Street (number 51) when she married Alexander a few months earlier – perhaps both girls had been living with their mother. (They appear to be with her in the 1871 census taken the year before their marriages.)
Divorce at the time was rare and limited almost exclusively to the rich. My presumption is that when Ann’s second husband, Ebenezer died in 1891, Hannah saw her chance and married William by using her sister’s name a few months later. If anyone was suspicious, records would show that ‘Ann Banner’ was in fact a widow and legally able to marry. I have no idea if Ann consented to this or not. Of course there is the possibility William did actually marry Hannah’s sister for some reason but there is a lot more evidence proving the relationship between William and Hannah.
Next Steps:
Confirm Hannah, Ann and their mother’s 1861 and 1871 censuses
