Not only did she die at just 3 years of age, but she was buried under the wrong name!
To be fair, this error is likely confined to the burial register – a slip up by the rector confusing the names of two sisters – but I can’t help but feel a little indignation for the wee lass.
Eva’s older sister, Ada Rogers was born in 1859 and was only 18 years old when she died in 1877.
Baptism of Ada Rogers 1859Burial of Ada Rogers in 1877
Eva Rogers was born two years after her sister in 1861 and baptised in November at Newport, Shropshire, England.
Baptism of Eva Rogers 1861
As she was born and died between censuses, I only know of Eva’s existence due to trawling the Newport, Shropshire parish records on FindMyPast. But still, her burial did not appear in the burial records. However, there was a burial of ‘another’ Ada Rogers in 1865. I already knew Eva’s sister, Ada (who did appear on censuses) died in 1877 so who was this other Ada? At first I thought there was a transcription error but the record clearly showed ‘Ada Rogers’.
Burial of Eva Rogers (mistranscribed as Ada) 1865
Fortunately, Eva was registered under the correct name as can be seen in the GRO index.
The surname, death place and age at death match so I can surmise the rector simply had ‘a bit of a slip-up’ at the time of recording in the burial register. I feel glad that I was able to uncover the mistake and reestablish her place in the family tree.
I previously wrote about the brief marriage between William Henry Marston and Blanche Emma Wheeley in the post, Wheeley Interesting. I have just discovered that five years after their unhappy relationship broke down, there was a development…
Walsall Observer, and South Staffordshire Chronicle, 2 June 1906 , p3 c6
Basically, the amount of support Marston had to pay Blanche had been dropped to 7s.6d (approximately £29.46 in today’s money) [The wording makes it unclear whether this happened in July 1901 or July 1906]. However, Marston was now complaining that he shouldn’t have to pay support to his ex-wife at all, since she was living with another man.
…It was now alleged that defendant was living with Joseph Mellor in Moat Road. -Defendant did not appear, and Sergeant Haycock stated that when he served the summons she admitted in the presence of Mellor that she was co-habiting with him, and said she should not contest the case. -Mrs. Hargreaves, of Manor Road, sister of Mellor, stated that the latter and Mrs. Marston had been living together as man and wife for three or four months…
The new relationship may have come to his attention through Blanche being heavily pregnant with her eldest son, Joseph, who was born only a month after the article appeared. He and his brother, Charles appear with their parents on the 1911 census – still living in Moat Road, Walsall.
The Meller/Marston family on the 1911 census – 135 Moat Rd, Walsall
Blanche and Joseph had 4 children (one who died as an infant) before they were finally wed in 1913. These children were recorded under the surname Marston as that was still Blanche’s legal name, but the parentage was made clear by also including the name, Mellor. After their marriage, the couple had 4 more children, although one died when only a few months old. By 1939, all the children had dropped the ‘Marston’ from their name and used only ‘Mellor/Meller’.
Since divorce at that time was unlikely, and remarriage was illegal with a spouse still living, I presumed William must have died. He was still alive in 1911, living with his new ‘wife’ and son, Percival William Marston, but there was no death record before 1913.
William Henry Marston with his new family on the 1911 census – 49 Charlotte St, Walsall
William & Lizzie listed themselves as married on the 1911 census but there is no trace of a marriage between them. [Intriguingly, there is a marriage in 1911 of a ‘Percy W Marston’ to a ‘Lizzie Jackson’ in Southwell district, Nottinghamshire but an appropriate person with this name can actually be traced through the censuses. Also, the surname of Percival’s mother is given as Mitchell in the birth indexes.] It turns out, William and his family left England for South Africa in June 1913! They returned in 1919 for a few years before leaving permanently in 1921.
I don’t think it’s mere coincidence that Blanche and Joseph were married in July 1913. The expense alone meant divorce was unobtainable for the working class at this time. With Blanche’s ex-husband out of the country, they may have considered it their opportunity to finally marry (albeit illegally). The couple were still together in 1939 so I like to think Blanche did get that happy ending after all (at least for a while!).
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
