Darwen to Burnley
The first evidence I have of Roger Croft's travels in the mid 1800's, is his marriage to his second wife, Ann Golding, in Walton-le-Dale Parochial Chapel near Preston in 1839.
Ann was born Ann Daniels in Bilton Ainsty near York in 1810, and is a widow at the time of her marriage to Roger, with the surname Golding, so we assume that Golding was the name of her first husband. What took Roger to the Preston area is unknown, but Ann is also described as a ‘Weaver’ on their marriage certificate, so perhaps there was work for weavers in that area at the time. In the following year, 1840, Roger and Ann’s only child was born, again named James. At the time of James’ birth, they were living in the town of Preston itself, and Roger is still described as a ‘Weaver’ on his son’s birth certificate.
Only six months after the birth of James, at the time of the 1841 census, Roger, Ann and their infant son James are no longer in Preston, but in Bolton. Several of Roger’s brothers also made the decision to move to Bolton around this time – perhaps there was more work there for weavers than other places. It’s curious that Roger’s daughter, Alice is not with them in Bolton. Roger had two surviving daughters from his first marriage, Mary and Alice. By the time of the census Mary was 15 and living with her Uncle’s family in Lower Darwen, but Alice would have only been 9 years old, so why was she not with her father? A search of the 1841 census has so far failed to find her!
Roger next turns up in a newspaper article in 1844. The article is not specifically about Roger, but rather about Ann, his wife, or more precisely Ann's former husband. As already stated, when Roger and Ann married in 1839 Ann was already a widow, having been previously married to a man by the name of Golding. However, as the newspaper article reveals, this was not her only previous marriage! It transpires that in 1833, already widowed, she married a man named John Hesmondhalgh, only to discover that he was already married. As divorce was extremely difficult to accomplish in those times, desertion and subsequent bigamous remarriage was not that uncommon in the 19th century, and this seems to have been the case here. To Ann's credit however, it does seem that she was ignorant to Mr Hesmondhalgh's marital status, and upon discovering the truth immediately left him. So she says, anyway!
Roger next turns up in a newspaper article in 1844. The article is not specifically about Roger, but rather about Ann, his wife, or more precisely Ann's former husband. As already stated, when Roger and Ann married in 1839 Ann was already a widow, having been previously married to a man by the name of Golding. However, as the newspaper article reveals, this was not her only previous marriage! It transpires that in 1833, already widowed, she married a man named John Hesmondhalgh, only to discover that he was already married. As divorce was extremely difficult to accomplish in those times, desertion and subsequent bigamous remarriage was not that uncommon in the 19th century, and this seems to have been the case here. To Ann's credit however, it does seem that she was ignorant to Mr Hesmondhalgh's marital status, and upon discovering the truth immediately left him. So she says, anyway!
It would seem from the article that Roger was not exactly a model husband, being in the House of Correction for neglect of family at the time. Poor Ann was forced into the Workhouse as a result, presumably along with her child, James, who would have been only 3 years old at the time. No wonder she expressed a preference for Mr Hesmondhalgh over Roger.
The next occasion that we would expect to see the family is ten years later, in the 1851 census. However, neither Roger, Ann or their son James are to be found in this census! So where were they? As the census is supposed to include everyone in the country, they should have turned up somewhere. As none of them appear. the conclusion has to be that either the census has been mistranscribed (although I have searched using every possible name variation I can think of), the census for the area they were in has not survived, or they were not in England. Upon searching the Ireland records, the following marriage turned up:
So Roger was in Belfast in 1850, marrying for the third time, this time to a woman named Catherine Diamond (a widow, born Catherine Laverty). When and where his previous wife Ann died is a mystery, but there is no record of her death in England, so it's possible that Roger, Ann and their son James all travelled together to Ireland sometime in the latter half of the 1840's, and this is where Ann died. Civil registration of births and deaths didn’t begin in Ireland until 1864, so there is no record of Ann's death in Ireland. However, registration of Protestant marriages had begun earlier in 1845 which is why, luckily, Rogers subsequent remarriage to Catherine was recorded. Of course Roger, Catherine and presumably his son James would have still been in Ireland the following year when the census was taken. Sadly in 1922, an explosion and subsequent fire at the Public Records Office in Dublin destroyed the entire 1851 Ireland census, so again, we just have to assume that they were there, since they were not in England.
In the 1861 census Roger reappears in Preston with Catherine.They also have a ‘daughter’ Sarah with them, also born in Ireland. However, as the age of Sarah is given as 20, she is certainly not Roger's daughter, but Catherine's daughter by her previous husband. Sarah would have been about 9 years old at the time of her mother's marriage to Roger, and assuming that the age given on the marriage certificate is accurate (25), then Catherine was only about 16 when Sarah was born! Incidentally, Roger was considerably older than Catherine - he claims to be 40 on the marriage certificate, but was actually 49, almost twice Catherine's age. I wonder if Catherine new (or cared) how old he actually was? Of course it's possible that Catherine's given age on the marriage certificate was also inaccurate. It's quite possible that someone with her background (her father was a labourer and she was illiterate) might not actually have known her age, so 25 could have been a guess.
Roger Croft died in 1868, still living in Preston, and the informant on the death certificate was his step-daughter Sarah who was also present at the death. Roger was buried in a public grave in Preston cemetery. Catherine and Sarah remained in the area a while longer – they are in Walton-le-Dale in the 1871 census – but by 1881 they are still living together, but in Over Darwen.
Roger Croft died in 1868, still living in Preston, and the informant on the death certificate was his step-daughter Sarah who was also present at the death. Roger was buried in a public grave in Preston cemetery. Catherine and Sarah remained in the area a while longer – they are in Walton-le-Dale in the 1871 census – but by 1881 they are still living together, but in Over Darwen.
James Croft, Roger’s only surviving son, obviously followed the same path as his parents in his early years. Hence he is in the 1841 census as a baby in Bolton with his parents and, like his parents, he is totally missing from the 1851 England census therefore presumably in Ireland with his father and new wife.
In 1861 James is living in Burnley (Habergham Eaves). According to the census he is aged 26 (he was actually 20 years old at this time!) and he is a Collier. Again according to the census, he is married to Ann, aged 27, and has two children named Fish and Sarah, aged 9 and 6 respectively. Now this was not actually true. James was not only giving a false age here, but was also not married to Ann, and was, of course, not the father of Fish and Sarah (he seems quite like his father Roger in this respect!). He may have lied about his age in order for it to be possible that he actually was their father; a man of 20 could hardly be the father of a 9 year old child! In fact Ann also gave a false age, she was actually 32 at the time of the census, 12 years older than James. So James was living as man and wife with an older woman who already had two children from a previous marriage. I have subsequently found out that Ann was born Ann Duckworth in Darwen in 1828, and was married to Thurston Cooper in 1852. They had a son, Fish in March 1852 and a daughter, Sarah in 1854, so Fish must have already have been born by the time they married, or Ann was heavily pregnant! Thurston Cooper then disappeared following the birth of his second child, apparently abandoning Ann and the children. This then is why James and Ann are not actually married in the 1861 census – Ann was already married! Interestingly, at the time of the 1861 census, James and Ann have three lodgers living with them, a 28 year old woman called Bridget Gorton from Ireland (a Pauper) and her two small children.
James and Ann had their first child, again named James, in 1862. At this time they were living in Over Darwen. On the birth certificate, Ann’s details are given as “Ann Croft, formerly Duckworth”. So the pretence of being married was still going on, and there is no mention of the name ‘Cooper’. Their second child, Sarah, was born in 1867 in Burnley, and their third child, Thomas was also born in Burnley in 1869. The details on all the certificates are the same, with Ann declaring herself to be the wife of James Croft, and her maiden name to be Duckworth.
James Croft finally married Ann in April 1871. On their marriage certificate James’s age is given as 36 (he was actually 30) and Ann’s age as 45 (she was actually 43), so it would seem that they were still rather unsure of their actual ages! Ann’s details give her name as Ann Cooper, ‘Widow’. I have found a record of the death of Thurston Cooper in Horwich in November 1869, so it would seem that this finally cleared the way for James and Ann to marry. The 1871 census was taken on 6th April, 5 days after their marriage, so this time when they stated to be married they were telling the truth! On the census, as on their marriage certificate, their address is Habergham Eaves, Burnley, and James’s occupation is still ‘Coal Miner’.
James and Ann’s last child, Mary Ellen, was born in November 1872. Curiously, at this time they are living in Bishop Auckland, County Durham. I have no explanation for this as yet, other than the assumption that perhaps they moved there temporarily to find work. Interestingly, as Mary Ellen was the first (and only) child to be born to James and Ann since they genuinely married, Ann’s details on the birth certificate are different this time. She gives her name as “Ann Croft, formerly Cooper”. Ann died in 1880, by which time the family were back living in Habergham Eaves.
James married again in March 1883 at St. Andrew’s Church in Burnley to Ellen Whittaker. This marriage lasted a very short time, however, as Ellen died in June of the same year. James seems to have got over this tragedy fairly quickly however, as he married yet again in November 1883. His new wife was called Ann Sutcliffe (born Ann Lord). She was a widow, having been previously married to a man named Philip Sutcliffe who had died in 1882, and she already had 4 children from her first marriage.
James and Ann continued to live in Burnley for some years; in the 1891 census they are there with James still working as a coal miner. Mary Ellen is still living with them at this time, aged 18, and working as a cotton weaver, and also Ann’s two youngest children (aged 14 and 17) are still there, one working as a miner, one as a cotton weaver. Looking at the other families living in the area, virtually everyone was working either in the coal mines or in the cotton mills; these were the two mass employers of the time.
The next time we would expect to see James would be in the 1901 census, but he is not there! His wife Ann is living in Burnley with her daughter’s family, but there is no sign of James. A search of the census does not find James anywhere!
James reappears in the 1911 census, living in the household of James Whewell, in Castleford, Yorkshire. There is a family connection here, as James Whewell was the brother of Richard Whewell who was married to Mary Ellen, James Croft’s daughter. The reason for their presence in Castleford was due to the coal mining industry there. The whole family (James Croft included, even though he was aged 70 by then) are listed as Collier Hewers (coal face workers). James marital status is listed as single in the census, his wife Ann having died in 1905.
James Croft died in March 1928, at the age of 87. At the time of his death he was living with his daughter Mary Ellen and her husband (Richard Whewell) in Garnet Street, Over Darwen.
The next time we would expect to see James would be in the 1901 census, but he is not there! His wife Ann is living in Burnley with her daughter’s family, but there is no sign of James. A search of the census does not find James anywhere!
James reappears in the 1911 census, living in the household of James Whewell, in Castleford, Yorkshire. There is a family connection here, as James Whewell was the brother of Richard Whewell who was married to Mary Ellen, James Croft’s daughter. The reason for their presence in Castleford was due to the coal mining industry there. The whole family (James Croft included, even though he was aged 70 by then) are listed as Collier Hewers (coal face workers). James marital status is listed as single in the census, his wife Ann having died in 1905.
James Croft died in March 1928, at the age of 87. At the time of his death he was living with his daughter Mary Ellen and her husband (Richard Whewell) in Garnet Street, Over Darwen.
James’s first child, James, married Sarah Ann Peart in Burnley in 1883.
Sadly, he died in 1890 at the age of 28, without any children that I know of.
James’s second child, Sarah, lived until 1925, but I can find no record of her marrying.
Upon investigating Mary Ellen, James’s youngest child, I found some interesting facts. It would seem she married William Baxendale at St. Andrews Church, Burnley in 1892, and subsequently married Richard Whewell at Blackburn Register Office in 1900.
James’s second child, Sarah, lived until 1925, but I can find no record of her marrying.
Upon investigating Mary Ellen, James’s youngest child, I found some interesting facts. It would seem she married William Baxendale at St. Andrews Church, Burnley in 1892, and subsequently married Richard Whewell at Blackburn Register Office in 1900.
The problem with this is that there is no record of William Baxendale’s death. In addition, Mary Ellen gave her surname as “Cooper” (her mother’s first married name) when she married Richard Whewell. It would seem from this that she had perhaps been abandoned by her first husband (similarly to her mother 40 years before), but had decided to bigamously remarry anyway, albeit using a false surname. Her new husband, Richard Whewell, must have been aware of the situation as he has gone along with the false name for the marriage. Mary Ellen and Richard lived initially with Richard's brother James and his wife. In the 1901 census, they are in South Kirkby, about 10 miles from Wakefield and Pontefract in Yorkshire. Both brothers are listed as Coal Miners, as are the majority of their neighbours. The opportunity for work in the South Yorkshire coalfield drew many people to this area around this time. Richard and Mary Ellen didn't stay in Yorkshire however, even though Richards brother James did. By the time of the 1911 census, Richard and Mary Ellen are living at 37 Garnet Street in Darwen (Richard still described as Coal Miner). They remained together in Darwen until Richard’s death in 1946. Mary Ellen died in 1955 at the age of 83, still living in Over Darwen.
James’s youngest son Thomas is the member of the family I follow now. Born in Burnley in September 1869, he went to work in the coal mines at an early age, joining his father and elder brother who were already working as miners.
James’s youngest son Thomas is the member of the family I follow now. Born in Burnley in September 1869, he went to work in the coal mines at an early age, joining his father and elder brother who were already working as miners.
In the 1881 census, Thomas is described as a ‘Coal Drawer’ and aged 13. In fact he was only 11 years old at this time! A coal drawer was someone (usually a boy) who would pull the coal trucks out from the mine once the men at the coal face (the Hewers) had filled them. Thomas did not stay working in the coal mines however. In 1888 at the age of 19, he joined the Navy. This did not work out well for him. The story goes that he witnessed a flogging on board ship and as a result of this he jumped ship! This is born out by looking at Thomas’ Navy record.
As can be seen from the record sheet, Thomas signed up for twelve years, but ended up only serving 5 months. The reason for discharge is given as “Run”. His character on the record reads “VG”, so it seems that up to the point when he ran, things were going well.Having ‘left’ the Navy, Thomas decided to join the army instead, but having deserted from the navy he didn’t dare use his real name for fear of being arrested, so instead he enlisted as Thomas Cooper (using the name "Cooper” as his sister Mary Ellen also did in her bigamous second marriage). He served from about 1890 to 1896 in the Border Regiment in Afghanistan, before returning to England.
In October 1896 Thomas had a child, a son named Willie, born in Burnley. The 1901 census makes interesting reading. In the census Thomas is living in Castle Eden, County Durham. Why he is up there I can only speculate; perhaps for work, or perhaps he was still afraid of the penalty if he were caught for deserting the Navy! In any case he is using the name Cooper in the census, so it would appear that he wanted to stay hidden from the authorities. In the census, Thomas is working as a Railway Labourer, and is living with his wife, Isabella, and their two children, Willie and Thomas aged four and two. As Willie (their first child) was born in Burnley, it’s safe to assume that Thomas went home to Burnley when he first came out of the army, and this is where he met Isabella and they had their first child. Their second child, Thomas, is stated on the census to have been born in Wakefield, Yorkshire, and this is confirmed by the registration of the birth of a Thomas Croft in Wakefield in early 1899. So it would seem that Thomas and Isabella left Burnley around 1898 with a young baby, travelling first to Wakefield where they had their second child, then on to County Durham. Although in the 1901 census, Isabella is stated to be Thomas’s wife, they were in fact not married at this time. Isabella (Wareing) and Thomas did not actually marry until years later, in Leeds, in 1919.