Finishing Touches

A couple of questions have arisen from my previous entry. I have been asked if I have a photograph of my Great-Grandfather. Sadly, no, although there might have been one.  I do have a very worn photograph of some of his children when they were little and another of one of his sons in naval dress (handsome young man).  My Grandmother kept everything locked in the large dresser that she had in the dining-room that was later to act as a bedroom for my Grandfather and eventually for herself. Nobody was allowed to look at any of her private things. Occasionally she would take items out and look at them herself and maybe say a word or two about them.  She had the death memorial cards for two of her own children, photographs of her remaining family back in Scotland, letters from them and from her father (the gentleman that drowned). It was a treasure trove of personal possessions belonging to her and to her husband.

Sadly, after Grandmother died, my uncle (her youngest son) continued to live in the house. He had absolutely no interest in the family tree and would provide no information not even much regarding his war service. He was only ever interested in being in the pub with his friends. When he died, it left the house empty and it fell to his son to go through belongings and clear everything out.

At the funeral of my uncle, Mike, a female cousin and even my brother begged him to treat everything like gold dust, especially documents and photos. He knew the family tree was being done. He promised he would. He broke that promise. He went to the house and took anything of value in the way of furniture or china (which, in all fairness, he was entitled to do) and then walked away. He decided he did not want to go back anymore and he handed the key to the current landlord (after nearly one hundred years of family occupation) with instructions that the landlord could take everything to the dump. My cousin had simply emptied everything out into boxes without going through anything, sold the dresser and then washed his hands and walked away.  Like his father, he has no interest whatever in the family tree. Whatever my Grandmother treasured so much for the whole of her life was taken on the rubbish cart and is now buried in a land-fill site somewhere.

I was also asked, is there a grave? Well, there is certainly a grave  somewhere  but, so far, I have been unable to find it. I was told that Great-Grandfather had been buried where he drowned in Sussex. One cousin thought she recalled some mention of Hastings. I contacted the Records Office there and they checked for me for any burial of a person of his name at anytime during September 1906. They came up with a blank. This leaves a couple of other places in Sussex but where? The nearest place to where he drowned is Rye and I am still making enquiries down that avenue. Of course, his body might have been brought back to London to be interred near one of his children. Without knowing their addresses at the time and, bearing in mind that London has countless cemeteries, it would be almost impossible to find him. He does not appear on the National Burial Index volume 2 which is the current edition but that is incomplete, it is still being compiled and it will be a long time before all burials are entered onto it. I feel it unlikely that his body was sent back to Scotland although he did have brothers and sisters remaining there.

It would be nice to find a grave and know where he lies. I know so much about him from his birth to his death, that is the only missing detail now.

I pondered  in my previous entry how many poor souls were fished from the river or the sea and just given the verdict “Found Drowned” as my Great-Grandfather was, when that was not the whole story. By co-incidence I was reading of just such a case yesterday.

In February of 1863 a woman’s body was found floating in the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal. Lying on the canal path was a nightdress, a cloak and a nightcap. These items were taken by the police for safe keeping. A wedding ring was found on the body. Other than that, they were no clues as to who she might be. It seemed like a suicide because of the clothing lying on the towpath, but as nobody could identify her, nobody came forward to claim her or to state that she had been troubled in mind, the verdict given was - “Found Drowned.” She was buried in Salford cemetery at the expense of the council.

Some time later a woman named Julia Dunn visited the police because she was worried about the “disappearance” of her sister. She told the police that her sister was Mary Charles and she was married to Luke Charles, an ex-policeman who had served with both the Irish constabulary and then the Bury one.

Some weeks earlier this couple had left their dwelling to go and visit Mary’s mother in Ireland. Charles came back alone. Mary's sister made further enquiries of him but got evasive answers. A while later he went back to Ireland again - supposedly  to seek information from Mary’s mother but in reality to visit his lover, Ellen Ford. Ellen had been living in Salford where she set up home and “entertained” Luke. She then returned to her home in Ireland where she anxiously waited for Luke to come and marry her, unaware that he was already married to Mary.

The police became more and more suspicious and was sure that the body taken from the canal was that of Mary.  Luke Charles remained evasive. When his relationship with Ellen came to light and she was questioned she was amazed and very upset to find out he was a married man, the police were convinced that Mary had been “got out of the way” leaving him free to marry Ellen. Ellen confirmed that during his two visits to Ireland, Charles had been living with her. Charles could give no satisfactory answers to the many questions put to him and was sent for trial.

Questions remained unanswered. If he had killed her - how? Did he drown her at home and then carry the body to the canal. Did he somehow get her to walk to the canal wearing her nightdress and nightcap with only a cloak over the top of it? If so, did he smother her, remove what clothing she had and push her into the water. Did he push her into the water, hold her under, then take her out and remove her clothing and push her back in again? It seems unlikely she would have stripped herself. Could she have been drugged? I cannot tell you because I do not think the police actually knew themselves. The evidence was circumstantial but based on the lies he had told about what he had been doing, his lies to Ellen about being a single man, his inability to respond to police questions with honest and open answers, he virtually condemned himself.

The police were convinced that he had murdered his poor wife Mary in order to start a new life with Ellen with whom he was besotted. He did not admit murder but neither did he deny it. An innocent man would have tried everything to prove he was innocent. He did not.

He was found guilty of murder and hanged in January 1864.

So, the verdict of “Found Drowned” although very helpful to the family in cases of suicide because it meant a Christian burial, the payment of any insurance money and prevented a stigma attaching to such a family, it was also a very convenient cover-up for foul play. One wonders just how many poor wretches  met their deaths at the hands of others and did not receive justice.

Luke Charles paid the price. There must have been many others who did not. With a coroner’s verdict like “Found Drowned” in those days you could  literally get away with murder.