Transcriber's Notes
When italics were used in the original book, the corresponding text has
been surrounded by _underscores_. Superscripts have been indicated by ^
followed by the superscripted text. Some presumed printer's errors have
been corrected. These have been listed in a second transcriber's note
at the end of the text.
ECHOES OF OLD LANCASHIRE.
Five hundred copies of this book printed,
and this is No. 228
ECHOES ...
OF
OLD LANCASHIRE.
BY WILLIAM E. A. AXON.
[Illustration]
LONDON:
WILLIAM ANDREWS & CO., 5, FARRINGDON AVENUE, E.C.
1899.
[Illustration:
WILLIAM ANDREWS & CO
THE HULL PRESS
]
TO THE
EARL OF CRAWFORD,
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ANCIENT
LANCASHIRE FAMILY OF
BRADSHAIGH OF HAIGH,
THE HEAD OF A GREAT HISTORIC SCOTTISH HOUSE,
THE CHIEF OF THE LINDSAYS;
A SUCCESSFUL WORKER IN SCIENCE,
AND AN ARDENT LOVER OF LITERATURE,
THIS LITTLE BOOK,
DEALING WITH SOME PHASES AND EPISODES
OF THE PAST LIFE OF THE
COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER,
IS DEDICATED.
Preface.
This volume is intended for those who find it pleasant, at times, to
wander in the byways of topography and local literature. The
development of Lancashire, especially in its relation to modern
industrial life, has been told by more than one able historian, and all
that is here attempted is to glean in the ample harvest fields. The
bygone customs, forgotten worthies, outworn superstitions, historical
episodes and travellers’ tales here recorded, will, it is hoped, not be
without interest. If some of the articles seem more modern than the
title would strictly justify, it must be remembered that the changes in
the condition of the County Palatine have been so rapid that many
things have become obsolete in the life time of the existing generation.
To several friends, and especially to the Rev. Dr. Casartelli and Mr.
C. W. Sutton, thanks are due for various suggestions.
WILLIAM E. A. AXON.
MOSS SIDE, MANCHESTER.
Contents.
PAGE
THE “LANCASHIRE PLOT” 1
DE QUINCEY’S HIGHWAYMAN 15
SOME LANCASHIRE CENTENARIANS 22
WHAT WAS THE FIRST BOOK PRINTED IN MANCHESTER? 39
THOMAS LURTING: A LIVERPOOL WORTHY 44
KUFIC COINS FOUND IN LANCASHIRE 56
NEWSPAPERS IN 1738-39 61
A LANCASHIRE NATURALIST: THOMAS GARNETT 72
THE TRAFFORDS OF TRAFFORD 80
A MANCHESTER WILL OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY 106
A VISITOR TO LANCASHIRE IN 1807 111
HOW THE FIRST SPINNING MACHINERY WAS TAKEN TO BELGIUM 119
MERRY ANDREW OF MANCHESTER 127
A MANCHESTER JEANIE DEANS 129
SOME LANCASHIRE GIANTS 130
A NOTE ON WILLIAM ROWLINSON 137
LITERARY TASTE OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 143
HUGH OF MANCHESTER: A STATESMAN AND DIVINE OF THE THIRTEENTH 146
CENTURY
MRS. FLETCHER IN LANCASHIRE 157
MANCHESTER AND THE FIRST REFORM AGITATION 165
THE FOLK-LORE OF LANCASHIRE 197
MANCHESTER GRAMMAR SCHOOL MILL 222
THE RISING OF 1715 231
THE FOOL OF LANCASTER 243
ALEXANDER BARCLAY AND MANCHESTER 245
INDEX 255
Echoes of Old Lancashire.
The “Lancashire Plot.”
The town of Manchester was in a state of indignant and feverish
excitement on the 17th of October, 1694, being the sixth year of the
reign of William the Deliverer. Everywhere groups of townspeople were
discussing the all-absorbing topic of the “Lancashire Plot,” for on
that day there came to the town four of their Majesties’ judges, with
every circumstance of pomp and parade, to try for their lives gentlemen
of the best blood of Lancashire and Cheshire; unfortunate prisoners who
were accused of having conspired against the Deliverer, of having been
guilty of the treason of remaining faithful to the old King, whom the
rest of the nation had cast off. The prisoners were brought into town
strongly guarded, amidst the sympathetic demonstrations of their
neighbours, who were equally liberal of groans and hisses for the
wretched informers who were about to do their endeavour to bring them
to the scaffold.
Lancashire, which in the civil war struck some hearty blows for the
Parliament, was now a hotbed of disaffection. The old cavalier
families, in spite of bitter experience of Stuart ingratitude, remained
faithful in spirit to the exile of St. Germains; and the common people
would have no love for King William, who was a foreigner, nor for Queen
Mary, who sat upon the throne of her royal father, whilst he wandered a
weary exile in a foreign land. The accused would have been pretty
certain of sympathy had the public mind been convinced of the reality
of the supposed conspiracy. How much more so, then, when it was
shrewdly suspected that the charge had been trumped up by a gang of
villains eager for blood-money, and supported by greater rogues anxious
for a share of the estates which would be forfeited upon the conviction
of their victims? Nor was the suspicion altogether groundless; covetous
eyes were fixed longingly on these fine Lancashire acres, and the Roman
Catholic gentry ran great danger of being defrauded of their
inheritances.
In 1693, a commission sat at Warrington to inquire into certain lands
and property alleged to have been given to “superstitious uses,”
_i.e._, to ascertain whether the Roman Catholic gentry had applied any
portion of their estates or income to the promotion of their faith, or
the sustenance of its ministers, and if they could be convicted of this
heinous crime the property was confiscated, and one-third portion was
to be the reward of the undertakers. So confident were these persons of
their prey, that the plunder was prospectively allotted. As the result
of this commission, where the defendants were not heard, the matter was
carried into the Exchequer Chamber. Here it was pretended that at a
meeting at the papal nuncio’s house, Lord Molyneux, William Standish,
Thomas Eccleston, William Dicconson, Sir Nicholas Sherborne, Sir W.
Gerard, and Thomas Gerard, had all promised money or lands for Popish
uses. But the accusers had been very clumsy, for the falsehood of each
separate item of the accusation was so abundantly proved, that the
Government was forced to abandon all further proceedings.
When, therefore, in the next year, it was bruited about that a plot had
been discovered to bring back King James and murder King William of
Orange; that men had been enlisted, commissions received from St.
Germains, arms bought and concealed in the old halls of Lancashire and
Cheshire, and that those who had by the Warrington inquiry been in
danger of losing their broad acres, were now also likely to lose their
lives; men said, not unnaturally, that it was a base and horrible
conspiracy against the Lancashire gentlemen; that this was the next
move in the iniquitous game began at Warrington. If broken tapsters and
branded rogues were to be encouraged in devoting to the traitor’s block
gentlemen of rank and estate, whose life was safe?
Such was the state of feeling amongst the crowds which surrounded the
Sessions House, opposite to where our present Exchange is erected. It
was not until the 20th that the trial before a jury began. On that
Saturday, Sir Roland Stanley, Sir Thomas Clifton, William Dicconson,
Philip Langton, Esquires, and William Blundell, Gent., were placed at
the bar and, in long verbose sentences, accused both in Latin and
English generally of being false traitors to our Sovereign Lord and
Lady, and specifically of having accepted commissions for the raising
of an army from James II., late King of England. After the case had
been opened, Sir William Williams, their Majesties’ counsel, called, as
first witness, John Lunt, who was asked if he knew all the five men at
the bar. Lunt, with front of brass, answered that he did know them all.
Here Sir Roland Stanley cried out, “Which is Sir Roland Stanley?”
Whereupon, to testify how intimately the informer was acquainted with
them, he pointed out Sir Thomas Clifton! Great was the outcry in the
court, which did not lessen when the judge bid Lunt take one of the
officers’ white staves, and lay it on the head of Sir Roland Stanley,
and he again indicated the wrong man. Being asked which was Sir Thomas
Clifton, he unhesitatingly pointed out Sir Roland Stanley. Having thus
shown his accuracy, he was allowed to proceed with his narrative of the
plot. His evidence asserted that in 1689 one Dr. Bromfield, a Quaker,
was sent by the Lancashire gentry to the court at St. Germains, to
request King James to send them commissions, that they might enlist men
for his service. Bromfield, being known as a Jacobite agent, it was
determined to employ some one less known, and Lunt was pitched upon for
the purpose. So, in company with Mr. Threlfall, of Goosnargh, he came
over in a vessel which landed at Cockerham, that famous village where
the devil dare not come. At the residence of Mr. Tildesley they
separated, Threlfall went into Yorkshire to distribute commissions, and
Lunt was summoned to attend a midnight meeting of the Lancashire
Jacobites, held at the seat of Lord Molyneux, at Croxteth. Here the
persons now accused were present, and many others, none of whom Lunt
had ever seen before. The commissions were delivered, the health drunk
of their Majesties over the water, and some little additional treason
talked. At this point in the evidence Sir Roland Stanley remarked how
improbable it was that he should accept a commission which might
endanger his life and estate from an utter stranger. “But,” cries Lunt,
“I brought you with your commission Dr. Bromfield’s letter.” Then the
judge said to Sir Roland, “You are answered—that was his credentials;”
but did not think fit to say that Lunt had made no mention in his
depositions of this circumstance, which was evidently invented on the
spur of the moment to confound Sir Roland Stanley. The judge also
observed there was no great matter in Lunt not being able to point out
the prisoners correctly. Lunt, thus encouraged by Sir Giles Eyre,
proceeded with his veracious narrative—swore that the Lancashire
gentlemen had given him money to enlist men and buy arms; that he beat
up sixty men in London, who were quartered in different parts of the
County Palatine; and particularised some persons to whom arms had been
sent. In 1691 (about July or August), he was sent to France, to
acquaint the Pretender with what his friends had been doing, and to
inquire when they might expect him in England. The spring following was
named as the happy time when the Stuarts were to be re-established on
the English throne. He also named a meeting at Dukenhalgh, when some
more commissions were distributed by Mr. Walmsley, one of the accused.
Mr. Dicconson now asked Lunt why he had not disclosed the existence of
this terrible plot, or why he had revealed it at all. Lunt was
evidently prepared for this inquiry, and his retort was prompt and
crushing. Some proposals had been made to which he could not assent.
Being pressed by the Court to be less reticent, and explain his
meaning, he said there was a design to murder King William; that the
Earl of Melfort (the Pretender’s friend and minister) had asked him to
aid in the assassination; he had consented to do so, but a Carthusian
friar, to whom he had revealed it under confession, told him it would
be wilful murder if King William were killed, except in open battle,
and he had revealed the plot lest his old colleagues should carry out
their wicked project.
Such, in brief, was the evidence of Lunt, deviating often from the
tenour of his previous depositions, which had been made before he had
been under the moulding influences of Aaron Smith, that unscrupulous
Jacobite hunter, whose duty it was to manage these little matters, to
procure witnesses and favourable juries. Favourable judges were
supplied by his betters. And to fully understand the gravity of the
prisoners’ position it should be recollected that they could not have
the assistance of counsel; their witnesses could not be compelled to
attend; they were ignorant of the witnesses to be produced against
them; and, until they stood in the dock, had not heard the indictment
against them. Every circumstance was in favour of the crown. Lunt’s
evidence was corroborated by Womball, a carrier, and one Wilson, who
had been branded for roguery, as to the delivery of commissions and
arms. _Colonel_ Uriah Brereton (a saddler’s apprentice and common
sharper) testified that he had received money from Sir Roland Stanley
for the service of King James. This worthy Captain Bobadil being asked
if he was not poor and necessitous when he received these gifts, cried
out, in true ruffler style, “Poor! That is a question to degrade a
gentleman.” The remaining evidence we need not go into, save that of
John Knowles, who, having been sworn, declared “by fair yea and nay, he
knew nout on’t.”
Then, after short speeches by Stanley and Dicconson, the witnesses for
the defence were examined. The first half-dozen made some damaging
attacks upon the character of John Lunt, representing him as a mean
scoundrel, a bigamist, and a notorious highwayman. Then Lawrence
Parsons, his brother-in-law, testified that he had been invited by Lunt
to aid him in denouncing the Lancashire gentlemen, but had refused the
offer of 20s. per week and £150 at the end, rather than “swear against
his countrymen that he knew nothing against.” Mr. Legh Bankes, a
gentleman of Gray’s Inn, told how Taafe, an intimate friend of Lunt’s,
and who was expected to be a witness for the crown, had been to the
wife of Mr. Dicconson, and revealed to her the whole design of Lunt,
offering to introduce some friend of the prisoner’s to Lunt, as persons
likely to be serviceable in any swearing that might be needed to hang
the prisoners. Mr. Bankes was suspicious of this being a trap; but
having been introduced to Lunt, that worthy, over a glass of ale, very
frankly said that he wanted gentlemen of reputation to back his own
evidence, and if Bankes would join he should be well provided for. He
produced his “narrative of the plot,” and Taafe read aloud this
manuscript, which named several hundreds besides the prisoners. “Why
were these not taken up also?” inquired Bankes. Lunt’s answer was, “We
will do these people’s business first, and when that hath given us
credit, we will run through the body of the nation.” When the next
witness arose, Lunt and Aaron Smith must surely have trembled, for it
was their old friend Taafe, who, after adding his testimony to Lunt’s
villainous character, gave a brief account of that worthy gentleman’s
career as a discoverer of plots. How the first one he discovered (it
was in Kent) came to nothing, as he had failed to find corroborative
evidence; and how he was near failing again from the same cause; how
Aaron Smith had edited and improved his original narrative. Lunt wanted
Taafe as a witness, complained that the men he had hired to swear were
blockish, and of such low caste as to carry little weight. Could Taafe
introduce him to some gentleman—(God save the mark!)—willing to perjure
his soul, consign innocent men to the scaffold, and receive blood-money
from Aaron Smith? Taafe, from some motive not clear, determined to
baulk the villany of his fellow-informer, hence the circumstances
narrated by Mr. Legh Bankes, whose suspicions of treachery had
prevented a full discovery. Taafe had partially opened his mind to the
Rev. Mr. Allenson, who had also distrusted him in a similar manner. In
Roger Dicconson, brother of the prisoner, he found a bolder and more
adventurous spirit. The evidence of Mr. Allenson need not be analysed.
He was followed by Mr. Roger Dicconson, who told how he was introduced
at a coffee-house in Fetter Lane, by Taafe to Lunt, as a proper person
to aid in the plan. Dicconson called himself Howard, a member of the
Church of England, willing to join in the plot for a valuable
consideration. Lunt said they had gold in for £100,000 a year, and that
the informants were to have a third of the forfeited estates. He asked
Lunt if he knew Dicconson’s brother, and Lunt, all unconscious that he
was sitting face to face with him, replied, “Yes, very well; for he had
delivered commissions to Hugh and Roger Dicconson about Christmas!”
Many more witnesses were examined, some of whom established that
certain of the prisoners were not in the neighbourhood of Croxteth and
Dukenhalgh at the time of the alleged Jacobite meetings at those
places; whilst others gave most damaging evidence as to the utter
rascality of Lunt and his chief witnesses—Womball, Wilson, and
Brereton. The judge, in his summing up, contented himself with saying
that the matter deserved great consideration, in which opinion the jury
did not agree, for, after a short consultation, and without leaving
court, they returned for each prisoner a verdict of NOT GUILTY. Mr.
Justice Eyres then discharged them, with an eulogy upon the merciful
and easy Government under which they lived, and advised them to beware
of ever entering into plots and conspiracies against it. Lord Molyneux,
Sir William Gerard, and Bartholomew Walmsley, Esq., were then put to
the bar, but, no witnesses appearing, they were also declared Not
Guilty, which gave Mr. Justice Eyres an opportunity for another cynical
speech, concluding with these words: “Let me therefore say to you, go
and sin no more, lest a worse thing befall you.” As they had just been
pronounced innocent, the meaning and fitness of his remarks are
somewhat questionable. But if his bias prejudiced him against the
prisoners, they would have compensation in the popular satisfaction at
their acquittal. Manchester went mad with joy. Lunt and his merry men
were pelted out of the town, and only escaped lynching by the
intervention of the prisoners’ friends; and all concerned in the
prosecution came in for a share of popular hatred. The peril which the
Lancashire gentlemen thus strangely escaped was a very great one, but
the peril which the country escaped was greater still, for had there
been wanting the disaffection of Taafe to his brother rascal Lunt, the
courage and address of Roger Dicconson, and the honesty of the
Manchester jury, England might have seen a repetition of the atrocities
of Titus Oates and William Bedloe; might have seen a bigamist
highwayman going from shire to shire and fattening on the blood and
ruin of the best of her nobles and gentlemen.
Such will be the impression left on most minds by a candid examination
of the proceedings at this remarkable trial as recorded in the volume
edited by the Rt. Rev. Alexander Goss, D.D., for the Chetham Society in
1864. It is only fair to add that those who believe in the reality of
the “plot” may cite the resolution of the House of Commons (many
witnesses on the subject were examined some months after this trial),
that there had been a dangerous plot, and that the special assize at
Manchester was justifiable. That resolution strikes one as being more
political than judicial. A prosecution for perjury against Lunt was
abandoned, because it was understood that persistence in it would bring
on the prosecutors the weight of the harsh penal laws.
De Quincey’s Highwayman.
“It was, in fact, the skeleton of an eminent robber, or perhaps of
a murderer.... It is singular enough that these earlier grounds of
suspicion against X. were not viewed as such by anybody until they
came to be combined with another and final ground. Then the
presumptions seemed conclusive. But by that time X. himself had
been executed for a robbery, and had been manufactured into a
skeleton by the famous surgeon Cruikshank, assisted by Mr. White
and other pupils.”—Thomas de Quincey’s “Autobiographical Sketches,”
chap. xiv.
In “The House on the Marsh,” a novel that has had a wide popularity in
recent years, the authoress, Miss Florence Warden, has chosen for
“hero” a highwayman, or rather burglar, who lives in the style of a
country squire, and, having access to the “best houses,” manages to
make his position in society contributory to success in the
“profession” he has selected. There is a curious parallel to the theme
of this story in the life-history of a man who was at one time an
inhabitant of Manchester, and whose strange career has already
furnished material to Thomas de Quincey and Mrs. Gaskell. More than a
century ago there stood—and still stands—at Knutsford a house on the
heathside known as the Cann Office. The tenant appeared to be a man of
independent fortune, kept horses, joined in the hunting sports of the
district, and obtained access to the houses and tables of the
neighbouring squires. According to the tradition, he had one night
noticed the diamonds of Lady Warburton, and followed her carriage on
horse-back, but on coming up with it was disconcerted to hear her say,
“Good-night, Mr. Higgins; why did you leave the ball so early?” On
another occasion he is said to have noticed in Chester a ladder left
accidentally against the wall of a house in one of whose bedrooms he
noticed a light. Ascending, he saw a girl in her ball dress take off
her jewels, and place them on the dressing-table. As soon as the maid
withdrew and the young lady was in bed, Higgins opened the window, and,
getting into the room, secured the valuable plunder. A slight noise
partially awoke the sleeper, who said, “Oh, Mary, you know how tired I
am; can’t you put the things straight in the morning?” and then fell
asleep again. If she had awakened and seen him he would certainly have
murdered her. Some suspicion that Higgins was not altogether the plain
country squire he wished to be supposed may very well have been excited
by his occasional absences. It is traditionally stated that his horse’s
feet were cased in woollen stockings for his nocturnal expeditions. The
murder of Mrs. Ruscombe, an old gentlewoman, at Bristol, caused some
noise. The murderer was Higgins. Before the murder was known at
Knutsford, in his anxiety to establish an _alibi_, he put in an
appearance at an inn, and made an incautious allusion to it which
piqued one of the company, a confirmed newsmonger, who prided himself
on having the first intelligence of every event of interest. Suspicion
was thus cast upon Higgins. He was arrested at his own residence, but
managed to elude the constables, and vanished from the neighbourhood of
Knutsford. He played the same _rôle_ of country squire a few months
later at French Hay, near Bristol. Thence he removed into Wales, “where
he broke open Lady Maud’s house at West Mead.” For this he was tried at
Carmarthen, and, notwithstanding that he managed to have a forged
respite sent to the Sheriff, he was hanged at Carmarthen on Saturday,
7th November, 1767. He died, we are told, in a very sullen humour, but
before he was “turned off” delivered to the officials a letter to the
High Sheriff. From this document and the contemporary accounts it
appears that the High Sheriff was acquainted with the birth and
parentage of Edward Higgins, about which no details are given. His
first exploit was that of eloping from the house of his mother with a
neighbour’s wife. This was the beginning of “all kinds of wickedness.”
He was tried at Worcester, 14th May, 1754, for housebreaking, and was
sentenced to transportation. “The day before the transports were sent
off from Worcester, his sister came to him early in the morning, and
desired to speak with him in a private room; this was refused. She then
requested that he might have permission to show her the dungeon;
thither they went, and stayed some time in close conference. She had
not left the gaol more than half an hour when a farmer who lived near
Worcester came in to enquire whether his sister had not been there,
‘for,’ says he, ‘I have been robbed of £14, and I have reason to
suspect her, and that she has given the money to her brother.’ The
turnkey told him what had passed. Higgins was searched, but nothing was
then found. He was brought down to Bristol, put on board the _Frisby_
for Maryland, and delivered, with the other convicts, at Annapolis. The
farmer who lost the £14 (as above) came with him from Worcester to
Bristol, and when Higgins was stripped on board the transport the
farmer’s money was found concealed in the lining of Higgins’ hat; but
as it could not be taken from him, the farmer was obliged to _be
contented with the loss of it_.”
By breaking open a shop in Boston he obtained a considerable sum of
money, and escaped by a ship sailing for England, to which he thus
returned within three months of his transportation. He settled first in
Manchester, and afterwards at Knutsford, where he married at the parish
church, by special licence, Katherine Birtles, 21st April, 1757. In the
licence he is styled yeoman, but in the entries of the baptism of his
children he is called Edward Higgins, of Nether Knutsford, gentleman.
His fifth child was baptised 11th June, 1764. His letter to the Sheriff
concludes with these words:—“As I die an unworthy member of the Church
of England, I do not desire your prayers, as you will not receive this
till after my death; yet beg for God’s sake (as you are a gentleman of
benevolence) you will have some compassion on my poor disconsolate
widow and fatherless infants, and as undoubtedly you will often hear my
widow upbraided with my past misconduct, I also beg you will vindicate
her to all such as not being guilty or knowing of my villany.” His wife
remained with him until the end. Higgins was dissected, and his
skeleton formed part of the museum of Dr. Charles White, F.R.S., of
Manchester. In his collection it was seen by De Quincey, who has left a
characteristic account of the visit in his “Autobiographical Sketches.”
In De Quincey’s famous essay on “Murder as One of the Fine Arts,” the
professor of homicide tells this grim story about Higgins. “At the time
of his execution for highway robbery I was studying under Cruikshank;
and the man’s figure was so uncommonly fine that no money or exertion
was spared to get into possession of him with the least possible delay.
By the connivance of the Under Sheriff he was cut down within the legal
time, and instantly put into a chaise-and-four, so that when he reached
Cruikshank’s, he was positively not dead. Mr. ——, a young student at
that time, had the honour of giving him the _coup de grace_ and
finishing the sentence of the law.”
Mrs. Gaskell wrote a sketch—“The Squire’s Tale”—based on the career of
Higgins, which appeared in _Household Words_, and is reprinted in her
collected writings. When the Rev. Henry Green was preparing his history
of Knutsford he carefully collected all the information that could be
found respecting the gentleman highwayman. Edward Higgins deserves some
remembrance not only for the strangeness of his career, but for his
posthumous influence upon English literature.
Some Lancashire Centenarians.
According to the census of 1891 there were 146 persons enumerated who
were returned as being more than 100 years of age. Eleven of these were
resident in Lancashire. It may be interesting to compare this with the
statements in some of the preceding census reports. Arranged in tabular
form, the following results are seen:—
_Centenarians returned at each successive census._
England and Wales. Lancashire.
1841 249 20
1851 215 18
1861 201 25
1871 160 11
1881 141 9
1891 146 11
In Lancashire, it will be noticed, there has been a marked tendency
towards the diminution of reputed centenarians. The general consent of
mankind seems to have fixed upon a hundred years as almost the outside
limit for the duration of human life. The Hebrews and the Chinese are
agreed in this. The Celestials have a quaint way of dividing a life
into cycles. From birth to 10 years of age is the opening degree; at
20, youth expired; 30, strength and marriage; 40, officially apt; 50,
error knowing; 60, cycle closing; 70, rare bird of age; 80, rusty
visage; 90, delayed; 100, age’s extremity. Far more claims to great
longevity are made than can be sustained by reasonable evidence, and it
should not be forgotten that the burden of proof belongs to those who
make these statements. The bulk of mankind do not exceed, and many of
them never attain, the Psalmist’s term of three score years and ten,
and it is only reasonable that those who claim for themselves or
_protégés_ an existence of five or six score should be required to
produce adequate evidence in support of their allegations. Curiously
enough until the second half of the present century statements of
extreme old age appear to have been accepted without doubt or inquiry.
In the census report of 1851 a sceptical note was struck, and since
then the late Sir G. C. Lewis and Mr. W. J. Thoms—especially the
latter—have done useful service by a persistent demand for evidence.
Under investigation some cases have proved to be impostures, and others
mistakes and self-deceptions.
The historian of the county of Lancaster claims for Ormskirk parish the
prevalence of an unusual degree of longevity. In the churchyard there
are gravestones over four venerable parishioners, which record that the
first of them died at the advanced age of 94, the second at the age of
102, the third at the age of 104, and the fourth at the age of 106
years. Many centenarians, real or supposed, have been connected with
Lancashire, and it is more than probable that a rigid investigation at
the time would greatly have reduced the number. They are here presented
in chronological order, and have been derived from a variety of
sources:—
1668.—Dr. Martin Lister, writing to the Royal Society, says that John
Sagar, of Burnley, died about the year 1668, “and was of the age (as is
reported) of 112.”
1700.—“Here resteth the bodie of James Cockerell, the elder, of Bolton,
who departed this lyfe in the one hundredth and sixthe yeare of his
age, and was interred here the seventh day of March, 1700” (Whittle’s
“Bolton,” p. 429).
1727.—In the diary of William Blundell, of Crosby, under date 21st
January, 1727, there is this entry:—“I went to Leverp: and made Major
Broadnax a visit, he told me that in March next he will be 108 years of
Aige, he has his memory perfectly well, and talks extreamly strongly
and heartally without any seeming decay of his spirrits.” This,
according to the Rev. T. E. Gibson, was “Colonel Robert Broadneux, at
one time gentleman of the Bedchamber to Oliver Cromwell, and afterwards
Lieut.-Col. in the Army of King William, died the following January,
and was buried in St. Nicholas’ churchyard, Liverpool, where his
memorial stone may still be seen. He is there credited with 109 years,
which, according to the diarist’s account, is one too many.”
1731.—Timothy Coward, of Kendal, 114.
1735.—James Wilson, of Kendal, 100.
1736.—Roger Friers, of Kendal, 103.
1743.—Mr. Norman, of Manchester, 102.
1753.—Thomas Coward, of Kendal, 114. The following is an inscription on
a tombstone in Disley Church:—
“Here Lyeth Interred the
Body of Joseph Watson, Buried
June the third, 1753,
Aged 104 years. He was
Park Keeper at Lyme more
than 64 years, and was ye first
that Perfected the Art of Driving
ye Stags. Here also Lyeth
the Body of Elizabeth his
wife Aged 94 years, to whom
He had been married 73 years.
Reader, take notice, the Longest
Life is Short.”
This Joseph Watson was born at Mossley Common, Leigh, Lancashire, in
1649. Watson was park-keeper to Mr. Peter Legh, of Lyme. About 1710, in
consequence of a wager between his employer and Sir Roger Moston, Mr.
Watson drove twelve brace of red deer from Lyme Park to Windsor Forest
as a present for Queen Anne. He was a man of low stature, fresh
complexion, and pleasant countenance. “He believed he had drunk a
gallon of malt liquor a day, one day with another, for sixty years; he
drank plentifully the latter part of his life, but no more than was
agreeable to his constitution and a comfort to himself.” In his 103rd
year he killed a buck in the hunting field. He was the father of the
Rev. Joseph Watson, D.D., rector of St. Stephens, Wallbrook, London.
1755.—Mr. Edward Stanley, of Preston, was buried in that town 4th
January, 1755, at the reputed age of 103. He was one of the Stanleys of
Bickerstaffe—the branch of the family that eventually succeeded to the
Earldom of Derby. His father was Henry Stanley, the second son of Sir
Edward Stanley, of Bickerstaffe.
1757.—James Wilson, of Kendal, 100.
1760.—Elizabeth Hilton, widow, of Liverpool, 121.
1761.—Isaac Duberdo, of Clitheroe, 108. Elizabeth Wilcock, of
Lancaster, 104. John Williamson, of Pennybridge, 101. William Marsh, of
Liverpool, 111, pavior.
1762.—Elizabeth Pearcy, of Elell, 104. Elizabeth Storey, of Garstang,
103.
1763.—Mr. Wickstead, of Wigan, 108, farmer. Thomas Jackson, of
Pennybridge, 104. Mrs. Blakesley, of Prescot, 108. Mr. Osbaldeston,
near Whaley, 115.
1764.—James Roberts, of Pennybridge, 113.
1765.—Mr. Glover, of Tarbuck, 104.
1767.—George Wilford, of Pennybridge, 100. William Rogers, of
Pennybridge, 105. Thomas Johnson, of Newbiggin, 105.
1770.—Ellin Brandwood, Leigh, 102.
1771.—Nathaniel Wickfield, of Ladridge, 103. Mr. Fleming, of Liverpool,
factor, 128. He left a son and a daughter each upwards of a hundred.
1772.—Mr. Jaspar Jenkins, whose death at Enfield in the 106th year of
his age is recorded in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for 1772, was
formerly a merchant of Liverpool.
1778.—John Watson, Limehouse Park (of which he was keeper), 130. Mr.
Husan, of Wigan, 109.
1779.—Susan Eveson, Simmondsone, near Burnley, 108.
1780.—William Ellis, of Liverpool, shoemaker, 131. He was seaman in the
reign of Queen Anne, and a soldier in the reign of George I. Thomas
Keggan, of Liverpool, 107.
1781.—Peter Linford, of Maghall, Liverpool, 107.
1782.—Henry Lord, of Carr, in the Forest of Rossendale, 106. He was a
soldier in the service of Queen Anne. Martha Ramscar, of Stockport, 106.
1783.—Thomas Poxton, of Preston, 108. He was formerly a quack doctor.
He attended Ormskirk market, twenty miles distant, constantly till
within a few years of his death; was healthy and vigorous to the last,
and was generally known by the name of Mad Roger. William Briscoe, Park
Gate, 101. Mrs. Holmes, Liverpool, 114. She was married at 48 years of
age, and had six children.
1784.—George Harding, Manchester, 111. He served as a private soldier
in the reigns of Queen Anne, George I., and George II. Matthew Jackson,
of Hawkshead, 100. He was married about eighteen months before his
death.
1786.—Elizabeth Curril, 100, Liverpool. Jonathan Ridgeway, of
Manchester, 100.
1787.—Mrs. Bailey, of Liverpool, 105. She retained her senses to the
last, was never bled or took medicine in her life, and read without
spectacles. Her mother lived to the age of 116.
1790.—Jane Monks, Leigh, 104. She retained all her faculties till
within a few hours of her death, and except for the last five years
earned her living by winding yarn. James Swarberick, Nateby, 102. Sarah
Sherdley, Maghull, 105. She was an idiot from her birth.
1791.—Jane Gosnal, 104, Liverpool. Frances Crossley, 109, Rochdale,
widow.
1793.—Mrs. Boardman, 103, Manchester, widow.
1794.—William Clayton, Livesey, Blackburn, 100. The summer before his
death he was able to join in the harvest work, about which time he had
a visit from a man of the same age who then lived about ten miles
distant, and who said he had walked the whole way. Elizabeth Hayes,
Park Lane, Liverpool, 110. Mrs. Seal, 101, an inmate of an almshouse in
Bury. In the earlier part of her life she was remarkable for her
industry, but had been many years bedridden, and supported principally
by parish relief.
1795.—Mrs. Hunter, 115, Liverpool. Roger Pye, 102, Liverpool. Christian
Marshall died at Overton, near Lancaster, aged 101.
1796.—Anne Bickersteth, 103, Barton-in-Kendal, widow of Mr.
Bickersteth, surgeon of that place. She retained her bodily and mental
faculties till her death, and walked downstairs from her bedroom to her
parlour the day she died. William Windness, 110, Garstang. Anne Prigg,
104, Bury.
1797.—Jane Stephenson, 117, Poulton-in-the-Fylde.
1798.—Richard Hamer, Hunt Fold, Lancaster, 102.
1799.—Mrs. Owen, 107, Liverpool. John M’Kee, 100, Liverpool, joiner.
Mary Jones, 105, Liverpool, workhouse. Margaret Macaulay, of
Manchester, aged 101. She was a well-known beggar.
1807.—Mrs. Alice Longworth, Blackburn, aged 109. She retained the use
of her faculties till her last illness, and never wore spectacles. Her
youngest daughter is upwards of 60.—(_Athenæum_, September, 1807).
1808.—Mary Ralphson, died at Liverpool, 27th June, 1808, aged 110. She
was born January 1st, 1698, O.S., at Lochaber, in Scotland. Her
husband, Ralph Ralphson, was a private in the Duke of Cumberland’s
army. Following the troops, she attended her husband in several
engagements in England and Scotland. At the battle of Dettingen she
equipped herself in the uniform and accoutrements of a wounded dragoon
who fell by her side, and, mounting his charger, regained the
retreating army, in which she found her husband, and returned with him
to England. In his after campaigns she closely followed him like
another “Mother Ross,” though perhaps with less courage, and more
discretion. In her late years she was supported by some benevolent
ladies of Liverpool. A print of her was published in April, 1807, when
she was resident in Kent Street, Liverpool.
1808.—There is a print without date of “David Stewart Salmon, aged 105,
the legal Father of two Indian Princes of the Wabee Tribe in America. A
resident of Cable Street, Liverpool. After serving his King and Country
upwards, of sixty years six months and five days of which time was
spent without ever leaving his Majesty’s Service, is now allowed 2s.
6d. per week from the Parish of Liverpool. He is the last survivor of
the Crew of the _Centurion_ when commanded by Commodore Anson, with
whom he sail’d round the World.”
1808.—Mr. Joe Rudd, writing from Wigan, June 10th, 1808, forwards the
following contribution to Mr. Urban (_Gentleman’s Magazine_, vol.
lxxviii., pt. ii., 576):—“I request you to record the following
narrative of the longevity of one family in the town of Wigan,
Lancashire, where Old Anne Glave died in The Scholes a few years since
at the advanced age of 105. She was a woman well skilled in herbs, and
obtained her livelihood by gathering them in their proper seasons. She
retained her faculties till the last, and followed her trade of
herb-gathering within a short time of her death. Anne was the daughter
of Barnard Hartley, who lived 103 years, and lies buried in Wigan
churchyard. Anne had several children, four of whom are now living at
Wigan in good health, viz., Anne, aged 91; Catherine, aged 82; Sarah,
75; and Elizabeth, 72. Old Anne Glave buried her husband, Robert, at
the age of 84. He was a fisherman, and famous for making rhymes.”
Jemina Wilkinson, Blackpool, aged 106. She retained her senses, and was
able to walk without assistance within a few hours of her
death.—(_Athenæum_, October, 1808).
1809.—Mrs. Mary Leatherbarrow, of Hulme, died at the age of 106.
1817.—Catharine Prescott, who died in George Leigh Street, June 2nd, at
the reputed age of 108, was a notable character in her day. It was said
of her that she learned to read—and that without spectacles—partly at
the Lancasterian School and partly at Bennet Street School after she
had passed her hundredth year.
1818.—Mary Harrison, who, in 1818, was living at Bacup, was said to be
108 years old.
1826.—Mrs. Sarah Richardson, a widow, who resided at the Mount,
Dickenson Street, died at the reputed age of 101. She was a native of
Warrington, and her descendants numbered 153.
1841.—John Pollitt, aged 52, and George Pollitt, brothers, were
interred at Rusholme Road Cemetery, November 16th. They were followed
to the grave by their father, William Pollitt, of Dyche Street, who had
attained the age of 104, accompanied by his great-great-grandson aged
21 years.
1848.—An old woman living in Burn Street, Chorlton-upon-Medlock, 110
years old, and in the possession of all her faculties. She perfectly
recollected the coronation of George III., which took place when she
was 24 years old.
1859.—Betty Roberts was said to be living in Liverpool in 1859, and her
birth was asserted to have taken place at Northrop, in Flintshire, in
1749. Her son, aged 80, was living with her.
1877.—In 1877 there appeared a notice of John Hutton, who was born at
Glasgow 18th August, 1777, and was apprenticed at Carlisle in 1793 as a
handloom weaver, but came to Manchester in 1796, where he served the
remainder of his apprenticeship, and was married in December, 1797, by
Parson Brookes. He became an employé of the firm of Thomas Hoyle and
Son, of Mayfield, and by his skill in mixing became of considerable
importance. In particular, he had a secret for the preparation of China
blue, which was entrusted to his son, who died at a good age, without
having left a successor to the secret. Messrs. Hoyle’s chemist, it is
said, who knew all about the theory of the dye, failed to get the exact
tint that was requisite, and a joking suggestion was made to the old
man that his services were still in demand. He took the observation
seriously, proceeded to the dyehouse, where under his directions the
brew was a conspicuous success. He was of medium size, cheerful
temperament, and habits of great regularity. He took little interest in
any matters outside the narrow limits of his household and the works.
He was not a teetotaller, but was exceedingly sober and steady. He
completed his hundredth year 18th August, 1877. His senses were
somewhat dulled, and the _arcus senilis_ was well marked. On his
centenary he was photographed in a group with his daughter, grandson,
great-grandson, and great-great-grandson. His fellows of the Mayfield
Works entertained him at Worsley, and in a bath-chair he was enabled to
enjoy the gardens.
1879.—Sarah Warburton, who died at Accrington in 1879, was reputed to
have been born February 2nd, 1779. At the old folks’ tea-party during
the Christmas before her death she received the prize of a new
dress-piece for singing a song of her juvenile days!
1881.—The case of the “Crumpsall Centenarian” excited some interest in
1881. She died October 8th, 1881, and was reported to be in the 108th
year of her age. Jane Pinkerton, whose maiden name was Fleming,
according to the testimony of the entry in a family Bible, in which the
names of her brothers and sisters were also entered, was born 16th
June, 1774, within a few miles of Paisley, in Scotland. When she was a
girl her father took his family to Ireland. She married James
Pinkerton, a schoolmaster in the neighbourhood of Belfast, and at his
death she came to reside with a married daughter at Lower Crumpsall.
She is buried in the Wesleyan Cemetery, Cheetham Hill.
This list is not a complete one, and doubtless many additions, some in
quite recent years, might be made to it. The reader will notice that
with few exceptions, amongst which is the remarkable case of John
Hutton—there is for the most part an entire absence of evidence. The
ages stated have evidently been taken down from the statements of the
old men and women, with little or no attempt to verify their
correctness. It may be useful to cite two cases that were adequately
investigated. The case of Miss Mary Billinge, of Liverpool, is
instructive as showing the possibilities of error. She was said to have
been 112 years old at the time of her death, 20th December, 1863, and a
certificate of baptism was obtained which stated the birth of Mary
Billinge, daughter of William Billinge and Lydia his wife, on the 24th
May, 1751. It was known that she had a brother named William and a
sister named Anne, who are buried at Everton. A reference to the
registers showed that these were entered as the children of Charles and
Margaret Billinge, and a further search revealed the name of Mary, born
6th November, 1772, and therefore only a little over 91 at the time of
her death. The certificate relied upon to prove her centenarian age was
that of an earlier Mary Billinge.
The other instance is that of Mrs. Martha Gardner, who died at 85,
Grove Street, Liverpool, March 10th, 1881, at the age of 104. This will
be best given in the words of Mr. W. J. Thoms, who, after the date of
her death, says:—“Some two or three years ago Dr. Diamond kindly
forwarded to me a photograph, taken shortly after the completion of her
hundredth year, by Mr. Ferranti, of Liverpool. I afterwards received
from two different sources evidences as to the birth of this very aged
lady, whose father, a very eminent Liverpool merchant, has duly
recorded in the family Bible the names, dates of birth, and names of
godfathers and godmothers of his fourteen children, who were all
baptised at home, but whose baptisms are duly entered in the register
of baptisms of the Church of St. Peter, Liverpool. Mrs. Gardner having
a great objection to being made the subject of newspaper notices or
comments, I advisedly refrained from bringing her very exceptional age
under the notice of your readers during her lifetime. I may add that
she was a cousin of an early and valued contributor to _Notes and
Queries_, the Rev. John Wilson, formerly president of Trinity College,
Oxford, and on his death on July 10th, 1873, Mrs. Gardner took out
letters of administration to his estate, and her correspondence, she
being then in her 97th year, rather astonished the legal gentleman with
whom she had to confer on that business.”
What was the First Book Printed in Manchester?
The answer to this question is not so obvious as might at first be
expected. There were in the Lancashire of Elizabeth’s days two secret
presses. From one there issued a number of Roman Catholic books. This
was probably located at Lostock, the seat of the Andertons. The other
was the wandering printing-press, which gave birth to the attacks of
Martin Marprelate upon the Anglican Episcopate. This was seized by the
Earl of Derby in Newton Lane, near Manchester. The printers thus
apprehended were examined at Lambeth, 15th February, 1588, when
Hodgkins and his assistants, Symms and Tomlyn, confessed that they had
printed part of a book entitled, “More Work for the Cooper.” “They had
printed thereof about six a quire of one side before they were
apprehended.” The chief controller of the press, Waldegrave, escaped.
In these poor persecuted printers we must recognise the
proto-typographers of Manchester. No trace remains of “More Work for
the Cooper.” The sheets that fell into the hands of the authorities do
not appear to have been preserved. Putting aside the claims of this
anti-prelatical treatise, we have to pass from the sixteenth to the
eighteenth century. Many tracts and books by local men, and relating to
local affairs, were printed before 1719, but that appears to be the
date of the first book printed in Manchester. The title page is here
reproduced:—“Mathematical Lectures; being the first and second that
were read to the Mathematical Society at Manchester. By the late
ingenious Mathematician John Jackson. ‘Who can number the sands of the
Sea, the drops of Rain, and the days of Eternity?’—Eccles. i., 2. ‘He
that telleth the number of the Stars and calleth them all by their
Names.’—Psalm cxlvii., 4. Manchester; printed by Roger Adams in the
Parsonage, and sold by William Clayton, Bookseller, at the Conduit,
1719.” (Octavo.)
The claims of Jackson’s “Lectures” were stated by the present writer in
_Notes and Queries_ (see fourth series, iii., 97, and vii., 64), and in
his “Handbook to the Public Libraries of Manchester and Salford.” Some
further correspondence appeared in _Local Gleanings_ (vol. i., p. 54),
and an extract was given from one of William Ford’s catalogues, which,
if accurate, would show that there was a local press at work in 1664.
Ford has catalogued a book in this fashion:—“A Guide to Heaven from the
Word; Good Counsel how to close savingly with Christ; Serious Questions
for Morning and Evening; Rules for the due observance of the Lord’s
Day. Manchester, printed at Smithy Door, 1664. 32mo.”