A comparison of kinship family survival in York and

A comparison of kinship family survival in York and

Swaledale in the nineteenth century

Thesis submitted for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

at the University of Leicester

by

Philip Anthony Batman

MA(Leic), MD(Cantab), FRCPath

Centre for English Local History

University of Leicester

April 2020

ii

Abstract

A comparison of kinship family survival in York and Swaledale in

the nineteenth century

Philip Anthony Batman

Kinship networks were fundamental in importance to family life in both the urban and rural

settings in nineteenth-century England. They could also be crucial in facilitating the process

of migration. This thesis explores the ways in which kinship families over the nineteenth

century responded to the stimulus to migrate. Kinship families are defined as several

households in a community headed by people with the same surname who were related by

lineage or marriage. Groups of people are quantified by a simple numerical index (surname

index), then tracked across historical time using decennial census data, baptismal parish

registers and memorial inscriptions. The surname index is an innovative powerful

demographic tool for analysing, measuring and comparing sectors of the population within

and between different communities and across time. People induced to migrate could follow

the path of others who had gone before. The index in this study has been used to apply a

measure to such chain migration of people with the same surname moving into York and out

of Swaledale in the Northern Pennines.

Migrant families came into York from mid-century to work on the railways or in flight from

Ireland at the time of the Irish potato famine, and out of rural Swaledale during collapse of

the lead-mining industry. Marked rural-urban differences are found in these migrations.

Railway kinship families formed a new community which grew for the remainder of the

century. Irish families arrived en masse and concentrated in an impoverished slum district of

York. Relatives often chose to live in close proximity. Holding of land was key to survival

for Swaledale families. Predominantly large kinship families migrated out of Swaledale to

other mining areas including North America.

The thesis furthers the debate about migration and kinship by showing that the impetus to

migrate could affect kinship families in different ways from non-kinship families, and that

complementary quantifiable chain migrations of related kin gathered pace into an urban and

out of a rural setting during the nineteenth century.

iii

For my family,

given and chosen

iv

Acknowledgements

This thesis has been many years in the writing and I have incurred many debts along the way.

The work has been a great personal pleasure, and in dark times it has been my refuge and

salvation. There are a few people to whom I should like to give my special thanks. My three

supervisors in Leicester have been magnificent, each in their own individual way: Prof Kevin

Schürer for giving my work structure and intellectual rigour; Prof Simon Gunn for making

me realise that numerical ‘indices’ are not an end in themselves; and Prof Keith Snell for

inspirational ideas. There are also some people I should like to thank from times beyond

Leicester who have been cornerstones of my life: Prof George Griffin, a physician and

mentor who introduced me to the joy of finding out new things; and James Turnbull (a

coroner), Denis Parker (a colleague), and Monica Barry and Bonnie Kelly (friends) who

helped me believe in myself when I needed to. Finally my own family to whom this work is

dedicated. The focus of my interest is family life, and I could not function without my own:

my children Tom and Emma, for never making the mistake of taking me (too) seriously; and

my late beloved wife Miche, for giving me all the space I ever needed and taking delight in

any path we chose to take, and in our family, which she left far too early.

I should also like to acknowledge City of York Council/Explore Libraries and Archives, for

permission to reproduce: Figure 26 Terraced railway housing including St Paul’s Terrace and

Railway Terrace in the 1950s (image number 6259); Figure 27 Back yards of railway housing

in the Holgate area of York in the 1950s (image number 6450); Figure 28 Entrance to Mount

Terrace from Holgate Road in 1922 (image number 241); Figure 37 Long Close Lane in the

early twentieth century (image number 157a206).

Publications

Three publications have arisen from this thesis:

1. P. Batman, ‘Surname Indices: The effects of parliamentary enclosure of the fields on

kinship families during the nineteenth century’, Family and Community History, 20 (2017),

pp. 102-120; 2. P. Batman, ‘The plight of Irish potato famine migrants in Victorian

Walmgate: a study of immigrants in Long Close Lane and Hope Street’, York Historian, 36

(2019), pp. 39-54; 3. P. Batman, ‘The trajectories of railway families in Victorian York’, in

D. Turner (ed.), Making the Connections – Transport and its Place in History (London,

forthcoming).

v

Table of Contents

Abstract ii

Dedication iii

Acknowledgements iv

Table of Contents v

Abbreviations and Definitions ix

List of Figures xi

List of Tables xvi

Chapter 1: Introduction: Kinship Families and Migration 1

Structure 1

Kinship and Migration 2

Research Questions and Outline of Chapters 4

Historiography: Rural and Urban Kinship Families in the Nineteenth

Century

6

Historiography: Rural and Urban Migrations in the Nineteenth Century 19

Demographics of York in the Nineteenth Century 22

Demographics of Swaledale in the Nineteenth Century 30

Chapter 2: Surname Indices: Concept and Application 39

Measurements of Kinship 39

Concept of Surname Indices 41

Census, Fathers’ and Memorial Surname Indices 42

CSIs: Isonymic, Kinship and Isolated Families 43

FSIs: Fertile Kinship Families 45

MSIs: Family Visibility 46

Surname Indices: Assumptions and Flaws in the Methodology 47

Isonymic and Kinship Families 47

Sample Sizes 48

vi

Selected Populations 48

Summary critique of the Surname Index formulated following

viva discussion with examiners

49

Surname Indices: The effects of parliamentary enclosure of the fields on

kinship families during the nineteenth century

50

Enclosure of the fields: Landholding patterns in two parishes 51

Surname Indices of Populations in Bolton Percy and Poppleton 55

Conclusions: Enclosure and kinship families 64

Chapter 3: Surname Indices and Migration: Kinship Families of York:

Holgate

71

Surname Indices of Holgate 72

The Four Streets of Holgate 78

Kinship Families of Holgate 81

Surname Indices and Migration: Kinship Families of York: Walmgate 88

Surname Indices of Walmgate 92

The Two Streets of Walmgate 96

Kinship Families of Walmgate 98

Chapter 4: Surname Indices and Migration: Kinship Families of

Swaledale

108

Surname Indices 109

Kinship Families 120

Age Cohorts in Migrant Populations 141

Age Cohorts in York Population 142

Age Cohorts in Swaledale Population 143

Chapter 5: Persistent Families of York and Swaledale 145

Holgate 145

Walmgate 152

Swaledale 157

vii

Chapter 6: Community and Kinship Families in York and Swaledale: York 160

Holgate 165

Residential Persistence 168

Family Migration into Holgate 171

Railway Community 175

Family History 181

Walmgate 183

The Irish Potato Blight and its Aftermath 183

Irish Famine Immigrants in York 187

Irish Famine Immigrants in Other English Towns 192

Alienation and Integration of the Irish in York 197

Family History 207

Community and Kinship Families in York and Swaledale: Swaledale 208

Kinship Families 208

Landownership and Lead mining 212

Inheritance 217

Dual Occupations 219

Poverty 220

Community Spirit 221

Family History 224

Chapter 7: Rural and Urban Comparisons 228

Is there a simple reproducible way of finding and tracking kinship families

in populations affected by migration?

228

What were the motivations of kinship families to migrate into York or out

of Swaledale?

230

Was there a pattern of migration of kinship families into York and out of

Swaledale?

234

Did kin move together in a chain migration? 237

How did migrant kinship families interact with their new community, and

did migration change these kinship bonds?

240

viii

Conclusions 242

Appendix 1 Census surname index data 245

Appendix 2 Fathers’ surname index data 247

Appendix 3 Cohorts surname index data 249

Appendix 4 Isonymic Families of Holgate Road 1841 to 1901 250

Appendix 5 Isonymic Families of St Paul’s Terrace 1881 to 1901 252

Appendix 6 Isonymic Families of Railway Terrace 1881 to 1901 252

Appendix 7 Isonymic Families of St Paul’s Square 1861 to 1901 252

Appendix 8 Isonymic Families of Long Close Lane 1841 to 1901 253

Appendix 9 Isonymic Families of Hope Street 1841 to 1901 254

Appendix 10 Family Plots of Long Close Lane and Hope Street 256

Appendix 11 Swaledale Household Heads 1841 to 1901: Increased and

decreased households with shared surname

266

Appendix 12 Alderson Family Plot 267

Appendix 13 Harker Family Plot 275

Appendix 14 Metcalfe Family Plot 279

Appendix 15 Occupations of Household Heads of Five Kinship Families in

Swaledale Districts

283

Appendix 16 Household Heads and Persistent Surnames of Holgate Road 287

Appendix 17 Household Heads and Persistent Surnames of St Paul’s Terrace 291

Appendix 18 Household Heads and Persistent Surnames of Railway Terrace 293

Appendix 19 Household Heads and Persistent Surnames of St Paul’s Square 295

Appendix 20 Household Heads and Persistent Surnames of Hope Street 297

Appendix 21 Household Heads and Persistent Surnames of Long Close Lane 302

Appendix 22 Persistent Family Plots of Swaledale 304

Bibliography 308

ix

Abbreviations

Surname Indices

SI Surname index

CSI Census surname index

CSI(H) Census surname index from household heads

CSI(A) Census surname index from adult population

CSI(T) Census surname index from total population

CSI(C) Census surname index from population cohorts

FSI Fathers’ surname index

MSI Memorial surname index

Topography

BP Bolton Percy

AR Appleton Roebuck

Pn Poppleton

NP Nether Poppleton

UP Upper Poppleton

HR Holgate Road

SPT St Paul’s Terrace

RT Railway Terrace

SPS St Paul’s Square

LCL Long Close Lane

HS Hope Street

A’dale Arkengarthdale

Demographics

MHS Mean household size

APH Mean number of adults per household

CPH Mean number of children per household

x

References

NYCRO North Yorkshire County Record Office

Y.H. York Herald

Definitions

A Household: All the people in a house enumerated in a census

schedule and led by an individual (a household head)

A Kinship Family: A group of households led by heads with the same

surname who had an ancestor in common (ie they were

related by birth) or were related by marriage

Family size equates with number of households

An Isonymic Family: A group of households led by heads with the same

surname

Isonymic Household Heads: Two or more heads with the same surname, who may or

may not have been shown to have an ancestor in

common (ie to be related by birth) or to be related by

marriage

Migration: A change of permanent residence

Immigration: A move from another country to take up residence in

England

Emigration: A residential move from England to another country

In-migration: A move into a different part of England to reside

permanently

Out-migration: A move out of a part of England to reside permanently

in a different part of England

xi

List of Figures

Figure 1 Six York Parishes in 1852 25

Figure 2 Hay meadows near Muker village in Upper Swaledale (photographed

by the author)

31

Figure 3 The four districts, villages and River Swale in Upper Swaledale 33

Figure 4 Population of Swaledale during the nineteenth century 35

Figure 5 Painting of All Saints Church, Bolton Percy 53

Figure 6 Total Population of Bolton Percy and Poppleton townships 1841 to

1901

54

Figure 7 Land acreages awarded at enclosure of Bolton Percy and Poppleton

parishes

55

Figure 8 Adult population size and census surname indices of Bolton Percy and

Poppleton parishes

56

Figure 9 Adult population size and census surname indices of Bolton Percy and

Appleton Roebuck townships

57

Figure 10 Adult population size and census surname indices of Nether and Upper

Poppleton townships

58

Figure 11 Census and fathers’ surname indices of Bolton Percy and Appleton

Roebuck townships

60

Figure 12 Census and fathers’ surname indices of Nether and Upper Poppleton

townships

60

Figure 13 Surname indices from surviving nineteenth-century memorials in the

churchyards of Bolton Percy and Poppleton townships

63

Figure 14 The Churchyard of St Everilda’s, Nether Poppleton (photographed by

the author)

64

Figure 15 Kinship family heads employed on the land of Bolton Percy and

Poppleton parishes

67

Figure 16 Total acreages farmed by kinship families in Bolton Percy and

Poppleton parishes

67

Figure 17 A deserted windmill in the parish fields of Bolton Percy (photographed

by the author)

69

xii

Figure 18 Holgate area of York (map published in 1893; Ordnance Survey,

1:1056 edition)

72

Figure 19 Surname index derived from census household heads and number of

household heads in Holgate Road

73


household heads in St Paul’s Terrace

73


household heads in Railway Terrace

74


household heads in St Paul’s Square

74

Figure 23 Mean household size of houses in Holgate Road, St Paul’s Terrace,

Railway Terrace and St Paul’s Square

76

Figure 24 Number of children per household in Holgate Road, St Paul’s Terrace,

Railway Terrace and St Paul’s Square

76

Figure 25 Railway and St Paul’s Terraces, St Paul’s Square and Holgate Road

(map published in 1893; Ordnance Survey, 1:1056 edition)

79

Figure 26 Terraced railway housing including St Paul’s Terrace and Railway

Terrace in the 1950s

80

Figure 27 Back yards of railway housing in the Holgate area of York in the 1950s 81

Figure 28 Entrance to Mount Terrace from Holgate Road in 1922 81

Figure 29 Distribution of heads of household of kinship families in Holgate

streets in 1891

83

Figure 30 Walmgate area of York (map published in 1893; Ordnance Survey,

1:1056 edition)

88

Figure 31 Surname indices of the total populations of Long Close Lane 93

Figure 32 Surname indices of the total populations of Hope Street 93

Figure 33 Surname indices of the adult populations of Long Close Lane 94

Figure 34 Surname indices of the adult populations of Hope Street 94

Figure 35 Surname indices of the household heads of Long Close Lane and Hope

Street

95

Figure 36 Long Close Lane and Hope Street (map published in 1893; Ordnance

Survey, 1:1056 edition)

97

Figure 37 Long Close Lane in the early twentieth century 97

xiii

Figure 38 Distribution of isonymic heads of household of Irish (red) and non-

Irish (blue) families in Walmgate streets by 1891

99

Figure 39 New isonymic family arrivals in Long Close Lane 99

Figure 40 New isonymic family arrivals in Hope Street 100

Figure 41 Number of people with the surname Brannan at the census of 1881 104

Figure 42 Number of people with the surname Calpin at the census of 1881 106

Figure 43 The four districts, villages, hamlets and River Swale in Upper

Swaledale

108

Figure 44 Total population of Swaledale and surname indices during the

nineteenth century

109

Figure 45 Adult population and surname indices of Muker 111

Figure 46 Adult population and surname indices of Melbecks 111

Figure 47 Adult population and surname indices of Arkengarthdale 112

Figure 48 Adult population and surname indices of Reeth 112

Figure 49 Total populations and number of households in the four districts of

Swaledale

113

Figure 50 Total population, mean household size, and average number of adults

and children per household in Muker

114


and children per household in Melbecks

114


and children per household in Arkengarthdale

114


and children per household in Reeth

115

Figure 54 Number of fathers and fathers’ surname indices of St Mary Church,

Muker

116

Figure 55 Number of fathers and fathers’ surname indices of St Mary

Langthwaite, Arkengarthdale

117

Figure 56 Number of fathers and fathers’ surname indices of St Andrews Church,

Grinton

117

Figure 57 Number of fathers and fathers’ surname indices of Reeth

Congregational Church, and Reeth Wesleyan Methodists Church

118

Figure 58 Average number of baptisms per father in Swaledale parishes 118

xiv

Figure 59 Memorial surname indices of gravestones in Swaledale 120

Figure 60 The four districts, villages, River Swale and main mines in Upper

Swaledale

121

Figure 61 Combined numbers of mining household heads of 5 families in

Swaledale districts between 1841 and 1901

125

Figure 62 Numbers of mining household heads of 5 individual families in

Swaledale between 1841 and 1901

125

Figure 63 Combined numbers of farming household heads of 5 families in

Swaledale districts between 1841 and 1901

126

Figure 64 Numbers of farming household heads of 4 individual families in


126

Figure 65 Numbers of farming household heads of the Harker family in


127

Figure 66 Occupations of Alderson household heads in Muker district 129

Figure 67 Occupations of Harker household heads in Muker district 130

Figure 68 Occupations of Alderson household heads in Melbecks district 132

Figure 69 Occupations of Harker household heads in Melbecks district 132

Figure 70 Ruins of the Old Gang Smelt Mill, Melbecks Moor 133

Figure 71 Occupations of Peacock household heads in Melbecks district 133

Figure 72 Occupations of Alderson household heads in Arkengarthdale district 134

Figure 73 Occupations of Harker household heads in Arkengarthdale district 135

Figure 74 Occupations of Alderson household heads in Reeth district 136

Figure 75 Occupations of Peacock household heads in Reeth district 137

Figure 76 Cohort surname indices derived from York and Swaledale populations

between 1851 and 1901

142

Figure 77 Cohort surname indices derived from populations of streets of Holgate

and Walmgate

142

Figure 78 Cohort surname indices derived from populations of Swaledale 143

Figure 79 Number of persistent isonymic heads of household in Holgate streets

in 1881 and 1891

146

Figure 80 Persistent isonymic heads of household in Holgate streets in 1881 and

1891 expressed as percentage of total number of households

147

xv

Figure 81 Number of persistent isonymic heads of household in Walmgate streets


153

Figure 82 Persistent isonymic heads of household in Walmgate streets between

1851 and 1891 expressed as percentage of total number of households

153

Figure 83 Number of household heads of persistent families in Swaledale


158

Figure 84 Patrick and Sarah Calpin and their daughter Hannah 207

Figure 85 Annual number of farm holdings by size category in Swaledale 213

Figure 86 Total population of Holgate and Walmgate streets of York and

surname indices derived from household heads

229

Figure 87 Total population of Upper Swaledale and surname indices derived

from household heads

229

xvi

List of Tables

Table 1 Demographics of Nineteenth-century York 27

Table 2 Railway kinship families of St Paul’s Terrace and Railway Terrace 84

Table 3 Non-Railway kinship families of Holgate Road and St Paul’s

Square

85

Table 4 Isonymic household heads of Long Close Lane 101

Table 5 Isonymic household heads of Hope Street 101

Table 6 Memorial surname indices and inscription data of gravestones in

Swaledale

119

Table 7 Swaledale kinship families with the greatest decline in household

head numbers

124

Table 8 Summary of Persistent Surnames of Holgate 150

Table 9 Summary of Persistent Surnames of Hope Street and Long Close

Lane

155

Table 10 Swaledale kinship families with the greatest growth in household

head numbers

157

Table 11 Tithe apportionments in Swaledale in 1838 – 1844 217

1

A comparison of kinship family survival in York and Swaledale in

the nineteenth century

Chapter 1

Introduction: Kinship Families and Migration

‘There is an enormous literature on the family … - a reflection of its importance for the

continuation of society and the happiness, and misery, of individuals. The family, we are

constantly told, is the backbone of society. …’1

Structure

This thesis explores aspects of the history of family life, and in particular focusing on the

ways in which families have reacted and responded to forces often beyond their control. The

study concentrates on families energised by one such universal force, the impetus to migrate.

The work evolved from an interest in the structure and functioning of ‘kinship’ (or dynastic)

families, and the search for a way in which such families could be followed and studied over

time and between places.

Research studies in both the arts and sciences have traditionally approached the unknown

from a pre-existing knowledge base and then applied or devised methods to question

assumptions and test resulting hypotheses. This study, however, adopts the opposite

approach, whereby discussion and theories evolve from collected data.2 Demographic data

have been analysed by an innovative method or tool, a ‘surname index’. This method suffers

from the specific disadvantages and limitations particular to any tool, but it provides a

powerful way of comparing the structure of local communities. It has been used in this thesis

1 Opening introductory comment of Elizabeth Bott’s anthropological work: E. Bott, Family and Social Network:

Roles, Norms, and External Relationships in Ordinary Urban Families (1957, London, 1971), p. 1.

2 This approach has been applied to social science data, as proposed in B.G. Glaser and A.L. Strauss, The

Discovery of Grounded Theory (New York, 1999). One example of such an avenue of historical research into

migration is ‘cluster analysis’ of populations: N. Spencer and D.A. Gatley, ‘Investigating population mobility in

mid-nineteenth-century England and Wales’, Local Population Studies, 65 (2000), p. 47. Similar ideas have

been used in scientific studies, for example Darwin’s theory of evolution derived from data amassed from the

fossil record: J. Browne, Charles Darwin: Volumes I and II of a Biography (London, 2003). Pryce has provided

a detailed criticism of the methodology of relying on available data to study migration rather than the rigorous

testing of specific research questions or hypotheses: W.T.R. Pryce, ‘A migration typology and some topics for

the research agenda’, Family & Community History, 3 (2000), p. 65.

2

to identify and track a section of some populations and explore aspects of belonging and

ideas about migration.

Two areas of Yorkshire that witnessed mass migrations in the nineteenth century have been

chosen for study. They were selected specifically because of marked demographic and

economic contrasts between the two. The compact and densely-populated City of York

experienced large immigrations, while the dispersed population of rural Swaledale in the

Pennine hills suffered mass out-migration. The people of York and Swaledale are described

in the study in both quantitative and qualitative terms from the rich historical documentary

evidence.

A preliminary study of the application of the index to populations of two adjacent but

contrasting villages is presented before the index is applied to the migrant populations of

York and Swaledale. The full potential of the method can be seen in this example in the

varying responses of discrete sectors of the two villages to the same historical event, namely

enclosure of the fields, before selective facets of the index as defined by the available

evidence are used to study migrations.

Kinship and Migration

Kinship, by which is loosely meant ties of family and communal interest, is a concept that

changes radically over historical time and place.3 Migration is an event that uproots families

and impacts upon their economic survival. This thesis is an attempt to marry these two

notions with a study of ‘kinship families’ caught up in some mass migrations of the

nineteenth century.

Emigration from Britain reached a crescendo in the middle of the nineteenth century.4 These

mass movements of people were associated with variable dynamics and they were responses

to widely different pressures. There was also a vast internal readjustment of population in

this century as agriculture was divested of much of the rural population in the wake of urban

3 See M. Murphy, ‘Changes in family and kinship networks consequent on the demographic transitions in

England and Wales’, Continuity and Change, 25 (2010), p. 109; N. Tadmor, ‘Early modern English kinship in

the long run: reflections on continuity and change’, Continuity and Change, 25 (2010), p. 15.

4 E. Richards, ‘Malthus and the uses of British emigration’, in K. Fedorowich and A.S. Thompson (eds),

Empire, Migration and Identity in the British World (Manchester, 2013), p. 48. See also D.E. Baines, Migration

in a Mature Economy: Emigration and Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1861 – 1900 (Cambridge,

1986), pp. 178 – 212.

3

demographic development.5 The study makes urban and rural Yorkshire comparisons over

this period of marked agrarian and urban migration and change. Certain districts of Victorian

York (representative of different social and industrial elements) are contrasted with

Swaledale, in an attempt to answer questions about urban and rural changes and continuities,

and the effects of migration upon community and kinship family persistence.

Districts chosen for study in York are parishes in Walmgate and Micklegate, in which people

lived in polarised living conditions. Each of the study areas experienced significant

migration in the nineteenth century, namely Irish famine migrants moving into Walmgate,

railway migrant workers in Micklegate, and the out-migration of lead miners from Swaledale

as their industry collapsed. The fortunes of these migrants, and their integration into the

indigenous families, are an important part of the study.

An attempt is made in this thesis to apply a measure along the chain migration of kinship

families. Kinship families in this context are defined as several households in a community

headed by people with the same surname who were related by birth (ancestral lineage) or

marriage. A simple numerical index (surname index) is described in which the number of

specific surnames is assessed in relation to the total number of individuals in the population.

It is a measure of the density or concentration of surnames. A low surname index implies

that there were numerous people in the population with the same surname, and therefore

potentially several groups of individuals whose members were related by birth or marriage.

These indices provide no more than a number which can be used to compare populations;

they provide no information about specific families. Once changes in the density in census

returns of household heads with the same surname (isonymic heads) over the nineteenth

century have been plotted by surname indices, however, individual kinship families are found

and examined by reference to household structures in the censuses and parish registers.

Kinship was of variable significance in different social groups and in different settings, and

was arguably of greatest significance in the lives of migrant families.6 Once having

5 R. Woods, The Population of Britain in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1992).

6 See, for example: M. Anderson, Family Structure in Nineteenth Century Lancashire (Cambridge, 1971), pp.

152 - 161; C. Pooley and J. Turnbull, Migration and Mobility in Britain since the Eighteenth Century (London,

1998), pp. 299 – 317; and ‘Family employment, paternal impact and family migration’ in S. McMullon,

‘Migration to Fletton 1841 – 1911: An exploration of family migration, the creation of community and social

mobility through marriage’ (unpub. PhD. Thesis, University of Leicester, 2019).

4

identified these families, this thesis sets out to describe them in different rural and urban

contexts characterised by migration. Migrant families, having overcome any uncertainty of

travel, may have moved with or followed kin to the same location. What induced kinship

families to migrate, and in particular if and why related households should migrate together,

are the central questions of this thesis.

Research Questions and Outline of Chapters

Several research questions are posed and answered in this thesis:

Question 1: Did the nature of kinship bonds and kinship families differ in urban and rural

contexts?

Question 2: Is there a simple reproducible way of finding and tracking kinship families in

populations affected by migration?

Question 3: What were the motivations of kinship families to migrate into York or out of

Swaledale?

Question 4: Was there a pattern of migration of kinship families into York and out of

Swaledale?

Question 5: Did kin move together in a chain migration?

Question 6: How did migrant kinship families interact with their new community, and did

migration change these kinship bonds?

The nature of kinship bonds and kinship families in urban and rural contexts is addressed in

general terms in the historiography of this Introduction (Chapter 1).

The concept and calculation of surname indices are described in depth in Chapter 2 (Surname

Indices: Concept and Application), as they are applied to people enumerated in decennial

censuses, fathers identified in baptismal parish registers, or the deceased memorialised on

churchyard gravestones. The major theoretical and practical disadvantages of surname

indices are discussed at some length. A range of surname indices derived from populations in

two rural parishes near York are then described in detail in order to show how the

methodology may highlight different reactions of rural communities to a major historical

event, namely enclosure of the fields.

5

The surname indices plotted from census data of four streets in Holgate and two streets in

Walmgate in York are presented in Chapter 3 (Surname Indices and Migration: Kinship

Families of York). Differing trends in the migration of kinship families into these streets are

shown, followed by detailed histories of some individual kinship families. In the urban

parishes of York the surnames of all the heads of household of the four streets in Holgate and

the two streets in Walmgate were retrieved from the decennial census returns, and kinship

families are identified as those families with a surname shared by at least two related heads of

household in a street at any census. The kinship families in Holgate are further subdivided

into those that had an employment connection on the railway, and those that did not. This

analysis of the two streets in Walmgate yielded many more isonymic families than could be

described in any detail. Accordingly only those isonymic families with the greatest number

of family heads enumerated from all the censuses between 1841 and 1901 were chosen for

study in each street. The families in Walmgate were further subdivided into those whose first

arrival was born in Ireland, and those who were born elsewhere.

The surname indices plotted from census data in Upper Swaledale are presented in Chapter 4

(Surname Indices and Migration: Kinship Families of Swaledale), together with indices

derived from baptismal registers and gravestones and data on household composition. All of

the families identified in the census returns of the nineteenth century in the dale are kinship

families, in the sense that every head of household shared a surname with numerous other

heads in a complex web of descent and intermarriage. No isolated families were identified in

any census return. This is a reflection not only of the larger geographical area and larger

population than either of the districts of York studied, but also a relatively high rate of

endogamy. Faced with an overwhelming number of kinship families, the thesis examines the

trajectories of the five largest families in 1841 that subsequently declined in strength either

within the dale and/or by emigration.

Households that persisted over prolonged periods of time are compared between streets of

Holgate and Walmgate in Chapter 5 (Persistent Families of York and Swaledale), and eleven

kinship families that grew in size in Swaledale are compared with kinship families that

diminished in size over the second half of the nineteenth century.

An attempt is made in Chapter 6 (Community and Kinship Families in York and Swaledale)

to describe changes in the communities of Holgate, Walmgate and Swaledale over the course

6

of the century that had a bearing on resident families in the wake of migrations into York and

out of Swaledale.

In a summary of responses to the research questions outlined above, Chapter 7 (York and

Swaledale: Urban and Rural Comparisons) draws together and compares the surname

indices and kinship family characteristics in the migrant populations moving into York and

out of Swaledale.

Historiography: Rural and Urban Kinship Families in the Nineteenth Century

This section presents a discussion about how families functioned within their wider

community, and in particular about the importance of kinship.7 It explores the historiography

of kinship in both the rural and urban settings, and then looks at ‘core families’, a close-knit

subset of family networks that are described in English rural parishes. Whether core families,

or families with similar attributes, lived also in the town or city community is a further

consideration.

An influential theory on rural and urban kinship changes was proposed by Talcott Parsons.8

His thesis was that the process of industrialisation fragmented the family, first by disrupting it

from kinship networks.9 The traditional view of family structure in preindustrial England

was that households consisted of large extended families comprised not only of parents and

children but other related kin. It was argued that industrialisation of a community would

result in the disintegration of this family group into smaller nuclear families consisting only

of parents and their unmarried children. Such nuclear families, organised on so-called

structural functionalistic terms, would be better suited to an industrial society, enabling their

7 For discussions about the family and kinship, see for example M. Anderson, ‘The social implications of

demographic change’, in F.M.L. Thompson (ed.), The Cambridge Social History of Britain, 1750 – 1950:

Volume 2. People and their Environment (Cambridge, 1990), p. 46 – 56.

8 T. Parsons, Sociological Theory and Modern Society (New York, 1967).

9 M. Segalen, Historical Anthropology of the Family (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 73-99. Parson’s work from the

1940s and 1950s has been criticised because it was not based on field research and it was confined to the middle

class (Bott, Family and Social Network, p. 115). A major flaw seen in his theory is the assumption that families

changed only in response to economic developments, ignoring the possibility that families could shape historical

processes; see L. Davidoff, M. Doolittle, J. Fink and K. Holden, The Family Story: Blood, Contract and

Intimacy, 1830-1960 (Harlow, 1999), p. 24.

7

members to move freely to where the economic system needed them.10 This ‘master

narrative’ was revised in the 1960s to the 1980s, when it was argued that the nuclear family

and relatively weak kinship ties enabled modernisation and industrialisation to take place.

The major difference then between the master narrative and the revisionist approaches lies in

chronological and causal features.11

Studies of urban families, however, have found considerable historical variation on this

theme, and it is impossible to make generalisations about changes in family structure or size.

Laslett among others has found that the nuclear family was typical of English society from at

least the middle ages. He pronounced in 1972, however, that ‘… it would be questionable to

assert that the transformation of English society by industrialisation was accompanied by any

decrease in the size of the average household until very late on in that process’.12 Janssens

carried out a dynamic study of families in a nineteenth-century Dutch town overtaken by

migration and a process of industrialisation. Her study examined changes in family life-cycle

patterns. She addressed the question whether industrial turmoil loosened kinship ties or

indeed activated families’ extended kin networks. By looking in detail at the life cycles of

two groups of families separated by several decades of urbanisation, the study assessed the

inclusion of kin members into the households. The time kin resided with a family was

determined by a number of factors, including the wish to pass down the family property to

the next generation, the boarding of young migrant kin in search of employment, mortality

characteristics and the passage into old age of solitary parents, and the age at which children

married and left the family home. Janssens concluded that the process of industrialisation

was indeed responsible for a considerable strengthening of kin co-residence.

Janssens also looked in great detail at the reasons families chose or were obliged to take kin

into their household. The main reason for inviting parents into the household was their

10 A. Janssens, Family and Social Change: The Household as a Process in an Industrializing Community

(Cambridge, 1993), pp. 1-6. See also S. Ruggles, Prolonged Connections: The Rise of the Extended Family in

Nineteenth Century England and America (Madison, 1987), pp. 127 – 134.

11 See P. Laslett, ‘Introduction: the history of the family’, in P. Laslett and R. Wall (eds), Household and Family

in Past Time (Cambridge, 1972), p. 1; and Tadmor, ‘Early modern English kinship’, p. 15. See also Wall’s

concept of an adaptive family economy in R. Wall, ‘Work, welfare and the family: An illustration of the

adaptive family economy’ in L. Bonfield, R.M. Smith and K. Wrightson (eds), The World We Have Gained

(Oxford, 1986).

12 Laslett and Wall, Household and Family, p. 126.

8

failing health or poverty. Towards the other end of the family cycle, the balance was tipped

and married children would move back into the parental home to strengthen its economic

base.13 The breakdown of a rural economy towards the end of the nineteenth century in this

Dutch community had no major impact upon family behaviour. Industrialisation did not

dissolve the ties of kinship. The increasingly dynamic behaviour of young people, on the

contrary, stimulated rather than inhibited the formation of the extended household. The

working class formed smaller extended families than the upper classes, due largely it was

argued to the latter's larger cohesive kin network. The middle classes in this work were

championed as the bastions of family and urban kinship. Clearly Janssens’ large detailed

study of an urban community experiencing industrialisation does not bear out the predictions

of Parsons’ theory of changes in family structure.

The frequency of extended family households probably increased from pre-industrial times

until the late nineteenth century. Ruggles estimated that the proportion of extended

households doubled between 1750 and about 1875 in England, and that about one fifth of

households included extended kin between 1850 and 1885. Most of these households came

to consist of nuclear families together with parents or siblings of the husband or wife.14

Schürer has widened this debate, confirming that extended family households became more

common in the later nineteenth century, and that the proportion of such households changed

with place.15 Farmers were among the social group with the highest proportion of extended

households. The nature of family support in Schürer’s study also changed over time. Reay

has thrown light on the role of village extended and kinship families in the rural Blean area of

Kent in the nineteenth century. His work challenged the orthodoxies associated with the

‘autonomous nuclear family’. The analysis of complex and extended household structures

balances the argument that geographical mobility at the time weakened kinship, released

children from parental influence, and encouraged them to rely on their own efforts. It was

common in the Blean for farming households to pass through an extended period with

13 Janssens, Family and Social Change, pp. 24-28 and 78–95.

14 Ruggles, Prolonged Connections, pp. 4 – 9.

15 K. Schürer, E.M. Garrett, H. Jaadla and A. Reid, ‘Household and family structure in England and Wales, 1851

– 1911: continuities and change’, Continuity and Change, 33 (2018), p. 365. Laslett set discussions about the

dynamics of family size and the opportunities for marriage in P. Laslett, ‘Misbeliefs about our ancestors: The

absence of child marriage and extended family households from the English past’ in The World We Have Lost

further explored (London 1965, 1994 reprint), pp. 81 – 105.

9

resident kin. Reay surmises that extended families may have served differing economic and

social purposes according to family position and status. The extended family of the villager

was a means of conserving land and caring for older family members. The economies of the

small farmers’ household, where all family members played their role from a very early age,

were adaptable to the needs of kin and encouraged longer term residence.16 There were clear

differences in the social status of households with or without resident kin. The households of

labouring families predominated among those families with kin links. His study provided

strong evidence that kin links were a significant factor in daily life in a rural community.

Moving away from households listed in census records, King has shown through a study of

poor law records in early nineteenth-century Lancashire that there was constant redistribution

of kin between related households, which consequently varied in both form and size.17

Ruggles had concluded that demographic change was critically important to the rise of the

extended family, and considered the possible motives for living in such a form: the

agricultural way of life, a means of coping with a lack of property, or a rise in the standard of

living. He rejected the notion that these factors were sufficient to account for the growth of

extended families; he proposed that the insecurity and sentimentality felt by Victorian

families influenced their choice of this family life.18

The move to an urban environment produced several changes in the households of migrant

Irish people, a focus of much of this thesis. In the decades before the potato famine, most

rural Irish families were nuclear and similar in composition to preindustrial English

households.19 Fertility was probably higher in Ireland than in England in the decade before

the famine, however, and there were generally more children in pre-famine Irish households.

16 B. Reay, Microhistories: Demography, Society and Culture in Rural England, 1800-1930 (Cambridge, 1996),

pp. 156 -165. Winstanley has shown the growing importance in the late nineteenth century of the contribution

of small farms to agricultural production and of the family members who worked them: M. Winstanley,

‘Industrialization and the small farm: Family and household economy in nineteenth-century Lancashire’, Past

and Present, 152 (1996), p. 157.

17 S.A. King, ‘The English protoindustrial family: old and new perspectives’, History of the Family, 8 (2003), p.

21. For the Irish perspective see M. Cohen, ‘Peasant differentiation and proto-industrialisation in the Ulster

countryside: Tullyish 1690-1825’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 17 (1990), p. 413.

18 Ruggles, Prolonged Connections, pp. 127 - 135. See also C. Nelson, Family Ties in Victorian England

(Westport, 2007), pp. 1 – 14 for a discussion of the Victorian attitudes to the family, and L. Davidoff, Thicker

Than Water: Siblings and their Relations, 1780 – 1920 (Oxford, 2012).

19 L. Lees, Exiles of Erin: Irish Migrants in Victorian London (Manchester, 1987), pp. 123 – 130.

10

Extended families were usually transient within a minority of households. Lees has found

that the family patterns of the urban and rural Irish had diverged by the middle of the

nineteenth century. Whether they had migrated into a city at home or overseas, their

households retained the same structure but became smaller, they married earlier, and they had

fewer children.

Within the group of kinship families, those individuals related by genealogy, are found the

‘core’ families of English old villages. They were, in essence, those people who ‘were’ the

village; they cemented the local society.20 Membership of a core family fulfilled a basic

human need of belonging in their hierarchical society. In their seminal works on such

families and their communities, Jean Robin and Marilyn Strathern analysed in considerable

detail the interactions of all family groups between the mid-nineteenth century and mid-

twentieth century in the village of Elmdon in north-west Essex.21 Strathern suggested that

these were the people who rarely moved away.22 They were content largely to live out their

lives within the confines of the village. The typical villager displayed a vague constellation

of attributes, such as rural born and bred, narrow vision and horizon, and long association

with the place. The study posed numerous questions about these families, notably who

exactly were 'real village' people, were these the longest established families as checked

through the parish registers, were they the owners of land passed on by inheritance, and were

these the agricultural labourers of the community? The village society of Elmdon included a

number of subcultures based mainly on class, in which there was a hierarchical ladder of

respect and subservience. They had clearly differentiated patterns of life, marriage and the

burial of their dead, and many other distinct patterns of behaviour. Postles and Postles

suggest that core families became consolidated in the early modern period when a nucleus of

20 D. Hey, The Grass Roots of English History: Local Societies in England before the Industrial Revolution

(London, 2016), pp. 183 – 185; G. Redmonds, T. King and D. Hey, Surnames, DNA, and Family History

(Oxford, 2011), p. 217.

21 J. Robin, Elmdon: Continuity and Change in a North-west Essex village 1861-1964 (Cambridge, 1980).

Other studies of parishes in Wales and Cumberland in the twentieth century stress also the stability of some

rural populations, the cohesion of family, kindred and neighbours, and the sense of ‘belonging’ that these

communities could engender: A.D. Rees, Life in a Welsh Countryside: A Social Study of Llanfihangel yng

Ngwynfa (Cardiff, 1951); W.M. Williams, The Sociology of an English Village: Gosforth (London, 1956).

22 M. Strathern, Kinship at the Core: An Anthropology of Elmdon a Village in North-west Essex in the Nineteen-

sixties (Cambridge, 2009), pp. xi-xxxiv & 1-34.

11

surnames in the community became persistent, and that their behaviour on occasion may have

been a force for change rather than continuity.23

Birth into a ‘core’ family gave individuals in their own opinion an inalienable status, which

could set them apart from other villagers and provide some buffer and support against the

vicissitudes of daily life. There was a close connection between being a core family member

and one's image of belonging to the parish.24 The notion or concept of belonging to a place

outweighs the significance of the place itself, and a way of life or length of association with a

village is not crucial to these ideas. To be understood in relation to a local context and to be

seen as an integral part of a community is perhaps a fundamental human requirement of our

past and modern society.

Core families tended in the nineteenth century to be mainly farmers and farm labourers, who

married among themselves or a spouse from a nearby village. They chose to live in close

proximity, and indeed to be buried close together. They lived in villages through long

association among close kin relationships, and attachment to the community of one's birth

was often crucial. The core families of rural communities cannot be classified by a simple

system and divided from the rest of the population. Their exclusiveness and their boundaries

were largely a matter of image. They did not form a discrete segment of the population

which could be separated off sociologically from the rest of the village. They are best

regarded not as a set of families with specific kinship lines or precise tight genealogies but

rather as those families who 'belonged' to the fabric of the parish. These families are an

image, an idea, whose identity was deeply rooted in a particular place.25 To be born into a

core village family was arguably then great good fortune, if only because of the comfort in

numbers and group solidarity it could provide.

23 S. and D. Postles, ‘Surnames and stability: a detailed case study’, in D. Hooke and D. Postles (eds), Names,

Time and Place. Essays in Memory of Richard McKinley (Oxford, 2003), p.193. Furthermore, close kin links

may also be found in an area which had been occupied for generations by the same families without a

corresponding growth of social relationships based upon them (Rees, Life in a Welsh Countryside, p. 73).

24 K.D.M. Snell, Parish and Belonging: Community, Identity and Welfare in England and Wales 1700 – 1950

(Cambridge, 2006), pp. 94 – 95 & 108; Hey, The Grass Roots of English History, pp. 183 – 185. See also D.

Maund, ‘Territory, core families and migration: a Herefordshire study’, The Local Historian, 49 (2019), p. 221;

and P. Batman, Four Faces: The Batman Family of York (York, 2014), pp. 44 – 63.

25 Strathern, Kinship at the Core, p. 147; M. Strathern, After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth

Century (Cambridge, 1992), p. 11.

12

Core families and kinship networks were clearly of importance in village society, but whether

they existed and were of such importance in industrialised urban societies is open to

question.26 Urban societies, geared towards an industrial mode of production, arguably may

not have required or developed kinship families beyond the domestic group. This section

explores now the role of kinship family networks in nineteenth-century towns and cities.

Anderson has shown that the smooth transition from rural to urban life was eased greatly by

some degree of functioning kin relationship. Those families who did not benefit from this not

only believed that they were, but often were in reality, at a disadvantage in terms of material

help and emotional support.27 This functional relationship was based on the principle of

mutual advantage, whereby kin weighed up the advantages and disadvantages of co-residence

or support rather than through any sense of family obligation. Close kin were prepared to

give practical support over the longer term, but more distant kin would tend to give day to

day help with mutual benefit only in the short term. Practical help has rarely been given to

distant relatives by right.28 Within urban working-class communities, the unpredictability of

industrial wage labour and high levels of migration favoured an increased dependence upon

kin.29 Unlike the rural economy, Anderson's study of Preston found that the working classes

with no ownership of property could utilise family and kinship relationships to provide more

secure employment. On the other hand, urban children were more liable to break family

bonds when life chances other than employment seemed a better prospect in relationships

outside the kin family.30 In marked contrast to the absolute dependence of family members

upon each other in a rural setting for crucially important needs, Anderson found more diverse

family behaviour in the urban scene.31 There was a steady flow of support and assistance

between kin who had stayed at home and those who had moved into the towns. The kinship

26 Bell and Newby discuss and quote ideas on ‘folk’ societies, in which ‘members … always remain within a

small territory …’ ‘In such a society there is little change, and members have a strong sense of belonging

together.’ They characterize urban society as ‘… lacking a strong sense of group solidarity …’ (C. Bell and H.

Newby, Community Studies (1971, London, 1975, p. 44).

27 Anderson, Family Structure, pp. 1-2.

28 J. Finch, ‘Do families support each other more or less than in the past?’, in M. Drake (ed.), Time, Family and

Community. Perspectives on Family and Community History (Oxford, 1994),pp. 94-99.

29 Janssens, Family and Social Change, pp. 110 – 158.



13

links were seemingly then not an archaic survival of rural core families, but rather new

responses or adaptations to new conditions. The networks in the new urban society derived

strength from their former stability and were able to reorganise in relation to other

associations, such as those of neighbourhood.

Returning in summary to Parsons’ theory, there is clearly no structural fit between the

changes to the society and the emergence of the isolated urban nuclear family. On the

contrary, the extended family form may even in some contexts have become more successful

as the process of industrialisation transformed social and economic structures. Offspring

often took advantage of accommodation in the parental home for longer because of the

greater availability of work nearby.32 Work on the extended households in urban life has also

noted that parents were often taken back into the family as long as they had something to

contribute in return.33 The number of kin in the extended household rose during

industrialisation up until the middle of the nineteenth century and has remained fairly

constant thereafter. The relatively small change which has occurred in household size as a

consequence of falling fertility is of more recent change than the industrial revolution.34 The

generalisation that an urban life should disrupt kinship networks by social isolation of the

nuclear family from kin has therefore been shown to be poorly founded.

Close kin clearly were important in the industrial town of Preston in Anderson’s ground-

breaking study. Just how important these family links were generally or in other contexts,

however, is open to question.35 In pre-industrial times of lower life expectancy, there were

32 Finch, ‘Do families support each other’, p. 93. See also Schürer, Garrett, Jaadla and Reid, ‘Household and

family structure’, p. 365.

33 Finch, ‘Do families support each other’, p. 102. The taking of children or parents back into the extended

household at different times reinforces the point that the composition of families could change significantly even

though the average size of the household could remain the same for centuries (Davidoff et al, The Family Story,

p. 37). Thomson reinforces this view somewhat in suggesting that impoverished elderly parents were not in

general taken back into the children’s home (D. Thomson, ‘The welfare of the elderly in the past: a family or

community responsibility?’, in M. Pelling and R.M. Smith (eds), Life, Death and the Elderly: Historical

Perspectives (London, 1991), p. 209.).

34 Finch, ‘Do families support each other’, p. 92. The Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social

Structure has shown many long-standing continuities in family structure throughout industrial development and

population change (Davidoff et al, The Family Story, p. 32.).

35 Wall argues that a variety of evidence suggests that kin were of limited importance (R. Wall, ‘Economic

collaboration of family members within and beyond households in English society, 1600 – 2000’, Continuity

and Change, 25 (2010), pp. 98 – 101.

14

fewer relatives alive to provide help, and large numbers of the population did not have the

financial resources to do so.36 These considerations have led to the view that the community

or state rather than family and kin would support the disadvantaged and needy, particularly

the elderly.37 The proximity of kin, of course, was no guarantee that family would have made

use of them, but Reay provides ample evidence that people would turn to their relatives for

help.38 Grandparents took in illegitimate children, who often depended upon relatives for

support. Kin could provide economic support in times of hardship. Old age did not always

mean a total reliance on the poor law. Oral history testimonies from the twentieth century

from rural Kent provided insight into the kinship interactions which Reay suggests percolated

down from the nineteenth century. Anderson also notes, however, that although many people

managed to maintain relationships with their family, this was not always the case. Kin

relationships, and indeed communities, may be defined as much by antagonism, fear and

suspicion as by neighbourly good will. Some individuals came to the view that they

contributed either in monetary or other forms of support more to their family than the family

gave to them. Relatives could die without the knowledge or regard of their kin, having

withdrawn from the fold to form new and more profitable social relationships which

benefited themselves.39 Similarly, the co-residence or proximity of kin is not proof of a close

supportive network; it may merely reflect the limited availability of houses or lack of

information for families on housing vacancies.40 In other words, although kinship links

existed in urban life, this is no guarantee that the relationships were functional or beneficial.

36 P. Laslett, ‘Family, kinship and collectivity as systems of support in pre-industrial Europe: a consideration of

the ‘nuclear-hardship’ hypothesis’, Continuity and Change, 3 (1988), p. 153.

37 D. Thomson, ‘Welfare and the historians’, in L. Bonfield, R.M. Smith and K. Wrightson (eds), The World We

Have Gained (Oxford, 1986); Thomson, ‘The welfare of the elderly in the past’, p. 198. Thomson argues that

the Poor Law Act of 1601 placed limited legal duty to provide assistance upon the relatives of impoverished

elderly parents, but rather upon the poor law authorities. Snell and Millar argue that early nineteenth-century

English society paid higher benefits relative to income of the working class than was the case in the late

twentieth century (K.D.M. Snell and J. Millar, ‘Lone-parent families and the Welfare State: past and present’,

Continuity and Change, 2 (1987), p. 387.

38 Reay, Microhistories, p. 168. See also B. Reay, ‘Kinship and the neighbourhood in nineteenth-century rural

England: the myth of the autonomous nuclear family’, Journal of Family History, 21 (1996), p. 87.

39 Anderson, Family Structure, p. 66; Davidoff et al, The Family Story, pp. 78-79.

40 R. Dennis and S. Daniels, ‘Community and the social geography of Victorian cities’, in M. Drake (ed.), Time,

Family and Community. Perspectives on Family and Community History (Oxford, 1994), p. 214.

15

Aside from kin, was neighbourhood important to the town dweller? The degrees to which

residents stayed in the same house or moved away determined the character of social areas

and the stability of communities.41 The dominant form of tenure in the nineteenth century

was rented accommodation, with its associated implications for moving house. The Victorian

poor tended to move often but generally over short distances, while the middle classes were

rather less mobile.42 The middle-class families had more secure incomes and were more

likely to own the house in which they lived or rented accommodation on more secure terms

than the poor. The critical influence of mobility or persistence of families on community was

not the occupational status of these people, but the ownership or class of their housing. Rent-

paying working-class residents showed short distance moves and circular mobility because of

little emotional attachment to their dwellings and minimal removal costs, but often

commitment to their locality.43 Neighbourhoods varied in the extent to which residents

stayed or left. In some working-class districts of York, for example, only 21% of working-

class families in 1851 were recorded at the same address 10 years later.44 Communities were

most likely to develop where families had lived and worked in the same neighbourhood over

a lengthy period, and when neighbours were also kin.45 Affinity was felt by urban residents

even with a stranger who was known to have been born or brought up in the same street.46

The mobility of families within towns did not disturb this frequent neighbourly feeling.

Anderson found that women in Preston could be more dependent on their neighbours than

husbands, given the segregation of their roles and the callousness of some husbands.47

Women were more likely to maintain interest in female kin for daily support, and the men

more likely to help kin secure employment.48 Casual labourers with no permanent work may

41 M. Pacione, Urban Geography (2001, London, 2009), pp. 51-52.

42 R. Dennis, English Industrial Cities of the Nineteenth Century: A Social Geography (Cambridge, 1984), pp.

258-259.

43 Pooley and Turnbull, Migration and Mobility, pp. 51 – 91; Dennis and Daniels, ‘Community and the social

geography of Victorian cities’, p. 205.

44 Dennis, English Industrial Cities, p. 255.


46 R. Parkinson, On the Present Condition of the Labouring Poor in Manchester (London, 1841), cited by

Anderson, Family Structure, p. 103.

47 Anderson, Family Structure, p. 104.

48 Finch, ‘Do families support each other’, p. 100.

16

have been more dependent upon neighbours and local tradesmen than kin for temporary

credit in times of crisis. However, kin were generally preferred over neighbours or friends

for support, given the high population turnover of some communities.49 The terms under

which houses were occupied had considerable influence therefore on the residents’ concept of

neighbourliness. The sense of community was determined possibly by households who

moved only short distances, either because they chose to remain in a familiar comfortable

environment, or because they were constrained by financial pressures or ignorance of where

else to go. Arguably, however, whether neighbours stayed or left had less to do with the

families’ feeling of community than whether they shared with them the same workplace or

congregation in church or chapel.50

Kin could provide a structured link, which could form the basis of mutual help, and they

provided the main source of aid. Neighbours could not provide this reciprocal support in a

mobile society. Critical life situations such as sickness, unemployment, untimely death or

other disaster were common, leaving widows and orphans, and temporary or permanent

arrangements for the substitution of family roles were pressing issues.51 Kin were the most

active of those who could provide this assistance in times of crisis. The role of kin in helping

relatives find employment was important, but these other critical events further encouraged

people to remain in a functional kinship system. In nineteenth-century Preston, Anderson

found kin made strenuous efforts to be neighbours. Several couples chose not to live with

their parents, but nearby. He cites numerous examples of people who were probably related

and who lived in close proximity.52

Financial considerations and responsibilities also played their part in kin relations both in the

rural and urban settings. The children of rural core families often were dependent on their

parents for employment. They often benefited also from gifts from their parents during their

lifetime and inheritances, factors which helped bond children to their parents and in turn gave

49 Dennis and Daniels, ‘Community and the social geography of Victorian cities’, p. 213.

50 Dennis, English Industrial Cities, pp. 264-269.

51 Anderson, Family Structure, p. 136; P. Joyce, Visions of the People: Industrial England and the Question of

Class 1848-1914 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 158.


17

parents influence over them.53 These considerations made abandoning relationships with

family and kin a precarious affair. In the earlier part of the nineteenth century a change took

place in some regions in inheritance practices which affected the fortunes of children.54

Before this time families with wealth typically bequeathed heavily in favour of the eldest son,

but subsequently other children came to inherit roughly equal proportions from their parents’

resources. There was furthermore under the poor law a requirement for children to support

their parents financially. According to Finch, there is no good indication that people took on

automatic responsibility for infirm, unemployed or impoverished relatives. Financial

relationships between kin typically were two-way exchanges rather than one-way assistance.

This author also cites circumstances in which people tried to evade their financial

responsibilities to family and quotes examples of children distancing themselves from their

parents as a way of avoiding maintenance payments. Wall redresses the balance by citing

cases of children supporting disadvantaged parents even when they lived elsewhere.55

The discussion so far has assumed that kinship and neighbourhood ties were similar across

the social spectrum. However, different social groups could adopt different strategies in an

attempt to adapt or maintain their networks. Within the rural context, there were clear links

between family and social class. The larger the farm and the greater therefore the presumed

wealth, the larger and more complex were the family forms. Kinship recognition was deeply

engrained also in landed gentry culture.56 Social category is a major factor also in the

formation of relationships within the urban kinship group. Urban kinship families provided a

continuity of culture through the generations, particularly among the middle classes.57 In the

supposedly anonymous urban community also, status could replace a rural network of mutual

acquaintance. The town dweller may not have the long genealogy of the rural core family,


54 Finch, ‘Do families support each other’, p. 96.

55 Wall, ‘Economic collaboration of family members’, p. 93.

56 M. Rothery, ‘Communities of kin and English landed gentry families of the nineteenth and early twentieth

centuries’, Family & Community History, 21 (2018), p. 112; L. Boothman, ‘Studying the stayers: Kinship and

social status in Long Melford, Suffolk, 1661-1861’, Local Population Studies, 101 (2018), p. 4.

57 Morris has shown the importance of the ‘property cycle’ in relation to the life cycle of professional and

business men in nineteenth-century Leeds, and the role of family networks in mitigating personal and financial

risk: R.J. Morris, Men, Women and Property in England, 1780 – 1870 (2005, Cambridge, 2008); R.J. Morris,

‘Family strategies and the built environment of Leeds in the 1830s and 1840s’, Northern History, 37 (2000), p.

193.

18

and may have been identified by more visible criteria. For the rural worker, a trade was

commonly passed from father to son, but into the nineteenth century, as both father and son

were often hourly paid workers in different urban factories, a break in this transmission could

occur.58 Kinship, however, could provide a way into the labour market, especially with an

employee’s first job. Young people often had the opportunity to work in their home area,

once the great population movements of the Industrial Revolution were over. Nepotism

played its part in urban working-class life. In the rural setting, endogamy united kindred

groups of a similar social category; in the urban setting, interwoven family marriage

strategies might bring together two complementary businesses.59

Did the importance of kinship ties change over historical time? In the towns of the nineteenth

century institutionalised means of assistance and support were either inadequate or provided

only at a cost which entailed a significant disadvantage. It was thus vital for kin to make

every effort to keep in a reciprocal relationship with other kin if critical life situations were to

be eased.60 Towards the end of the century, the urban working class developed a more

functional and less manipulative orientation to kinship. The introduction of the old age

pension possibly transferred some of the economic burden of old age from kin, so that a

stronger commitment to kinship developed. Anderson argues that traditional community

solidarity could then become possible.61 He suggests that the urban working class has

evolved from a preindustrial kinship network weakened because the problems were

insuperable, to a functional system at the end of the century, to a modern setting where

58 Davidoff discusses the interplay of kinship and work in working-class communities: Davidoff et al, The

Family Story, pp. 116 – 117.

59 Davidoff notes that the middle classes relied on the trust funds of close kin, typically wives and female

relatives, to form business partnerships and foster their entrepreneurial ambitions: Davidoff et al, The Family

Story, p. 24.

60 Anderson, Family Structure, p. 137.

61 Anderson, Family Structure, pp. 178-179. The old age pension was introduced in limited form in 1908, when

people over 70 years old and subject to an income test and character reference were eligible (Finch, ‘Do families

support each other’, p. 103). Thomson, however, maintains that elderly persons in the mid-nineteenth century

received a weekly pension from the poor law authority with a relative value in excess of pensions paid by the

late twentieth century welfare state. His timetable of fluctuating benefit is that welfare for the elderly was at its

height in the early nineteenth century, and declined after 1870 when it was felt that the aged did not need or

deserve community assistance and kin were capable of helping them: Thomson, ‘The welfare of the elderly in

the past’, pp. 209 & 216.

19

kinship is again weakened because resources can cope with the urban family stresses and

strains.

Historiography: Rural and Urban Migrations in the Nineteenth Century

Family and neighbours thus all played their part in the urban milieu. These social networks

became particularly significant to newcomers or outsiders. Many authors have emphasised

the active role played by kinship families in immigrant, political, religious and other minority

groups.62 Contact with kin could soften harsh new contact with an alien society and provide

feelings of stability, belonging and identity. Migration of all societies presents new special

problems which must be confronted if the migrant is to adapt to a new community. Migrants

faced new problems which they could not overcome without some form of assistance.

Almost all studies in the urban industrial setting indicate that kinship bonds were a major

source of this help. The earliest studies of kinship among immigrants dealt with easily

identifiable groups. Firth examined working-class people in south London contrasted with an

ethnic group of Italian origin in the mid-twentieth century.63 He found that these families had

important and extensive relationships with their relatives. He coined the term ‘kin universe’

for the number of relatives of the family beyond any household, and found that the number

was usually greater than a hundred. Families migrating from a rural to an urban setting often

built up important kinship webs in the towns. Anderson contrasts this with the view that

migration tended to disrupt kinship bonds. His analysis of nineteenth-century Preston found

that a high proportion of migrants lived with kin and that many more lived near them.

Although kin could not provide solutions to all the problems of urban industrial life, they

remained the most important source of support for the majority of the population.64 The

migrants in Preston maintained some important relationships with their kin left behind in the

country, and some of their patterns of family structure in the town resembled their former

rural pattern. Town and country people could form one kinship network with movement of

62 For reviews see Pooley and Turnbull, Migration and Mobility; Tadmor, ‘Early modern English kinship’, p.

15. For a study of religious immigrants see J.A. Garrard, The English and Immigration, A Comparative Study of

the Jewish Influx 1880-1910 (Oxford, 1971), and for a study of kin in a minority group see M. Prior, Fisher

Row: Fishermen, Bargemen, and Canal Boatmen in Oxford, 1500 – 1900 (Oxford, 1982).

63 R. Firth (ed.), Two Studies of Kinship in London (London, 1956), p. 67.

64 Anderson, Family Structure, p. 61. Schürer suggests, however, that although Anderson found a high

proportion of extended households with co-residing relatives, Preston was an exceptional case (Schürer, Garrett,

Jaadla and Reid, ‘Household and family structure’, p. 395).

20

people from one to the other with exchange of services. Migrants into Preston moved along

kinship channels opened up for them by kin and help flowed in both directions.65 Immigrant

minority groups in towns in general remained within a limited and familiar district, whereas

indigenous families were both able and willing to move more freely within the town.66

People born in the same community tended to move into the same street of the town, even if

they were not kin.67 They could then provide help for new arrivals in many ways, including

temporary accommodation, employment and help with adaptation to an urban life. Clustering

of migrants could provide comfort against the culture shock of life in a new environment.

Relatives making the effort to welcome immigrants may also have benefited financially by

their arrival. On the other hand, migration may have hindered the ability of kin to provide

regular assistance.68 Kinship in such immigrant groups had both positive and negative

aspects in the host society, at one and the same time a help to integration but slowing also the

process of assimilation into the dominant group.

Finally it is important also to consider and explore some aspects of the motivations and

psychology of migrant families, and in particular of kinship families tempted or induced to

migrate, within the shores of England or overseas in the nineteenth century.69 Migration

reached a peak in the middle decades of this century.70 Uprooting and moving a family

within the British Isles was always simpler than emigration. Most emigrations began with

the imperceptible movement of small numbers of people over many years, which evolved

over the course of time into a massive aggregate exodus. One of the most eminent

philosophers of emigration was Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834). Arguing in his writing

that population tended always to expand to the limits of subsistence, he urged emigration as a

solution to the problems of poverty and overcrowding in Britain in the late eighteenth and

65 Anderson, Family Structure, pp. 79 and 159-160.


67 Anderson, Family Structure, pp. 101 and 158.

68 Wall, ‘Economic collaboration of family members’, p. 85.

69 C.G.N. Mascie-Taylor and G.W. Lasker, Biological Aspects of Human Migration (Cambridge, 1989) provides

an overview of genetic and evolutionary aspects of migration. Pooley discusses the individual experience and

impact of migration in C. Pooley, ‘How people moved: researching the experience of mobility in the past’,

Local Population Studies, 82 (2009), p. 63.

70 Richards, ‘Malthus’, p. 49.

21

early nineteenth century.71 Ernst Georg Ravenstein (1834-1913) is perhaps a lesser-known

authority on the subject of population dynamics who published his ‘laws’ of migration in the

late nineteenth century.72 Unlike the works of Malthus, however, it is possible to scrutinise

the movements of individual families in the light of his eleven laws. His first law states that

most migrants travelled only a short distance. He suggested also that these individuals or

families did not travel directly to their ultimate destination, but by a series of steps of

‘intervening’ opportunities.73 Migrants moving long distances, on the other hand, tended to

settle in a large centre of commerce or industry, and these workers in general possessed more

skill or education than short-distance migrants. The basis of Ravenstein’s fifth law was that

people born in towns were less liable to migrate than those born in the countryside, and his

sixth that women were more likely than men to migrate within the region of their birth. This

he attributed to the urban demand for domestic servants, the movement of women at

marriage, and the dearth of opportunities for female rural employment. Most migrants were

adults, whole families emigrating only under exceptional circumstances. Nineteenth-century

towns grew more by in-migration than by indigenous expansion. These urban migrants

tended to be young and then married in the towns, where their offspring enlarged the

population further. The rural exodus to the towns gathered momentum as industry and

commerce developed and as transport improved, the basis for Ravenstein’s ninth and tenth

laws.74

71 Richards, ‘Malthus’, pp. 43-45. Richards suggests that Malthus’ predictions about population and emigration

were not borne out by history and that his arguments were incorrect.

72 E.G. Ravenstein, ‘The laws of migration’, Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 48 (1885), p. 167; E.G.

Ravenstein, ‘The laws of migration’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 52 (1889), p. 241.

73 Evidence of step-migration is discussed in: P. Aslett et al, Victorians on the Move: Research in the Census

Enumerators’ Books 1851 – 1881 (Thornborough, 1984), p. 14. Schürer cites Clark’s notion of ‘subsistence’

and ‘betterment’ migratory movements, the former undertaken by vagrants and paupers in an undirected fashion

often over long distance and the latter predetermined short distance moves (K. Schürer, ‘The role of the family

in the process of migration’, in C.R. Pooley and I.D. Whyte (eds), Migrants, Emigrants and Immigrants

(Cambridge, 1991), p. 108; P. Clark, ‘The migrant in Kentish towns 1580 – 1640’, in P. Clark and P. Slack

(eds), Crisis and Order in English Towns 1500 – 1700 (London, 1972), p. 117).

74 Ravenstein’s laws are discussed in: D.B. Grigg, ‘E.G. Ravenstein and the Laws of Migration’, in M. Drake

(ed.), Time, Family and Community. Perspectives on Family and Community History (Oxford, 1994), p. 147. 1.

The majority of migrants go only a short distance; 2. Migration proceeds step by step; 3. Migrants going long

distances generally go by preference to one of the great centres of commerce or industry; 4. Each current of

migration produces a compensating counter current; 5. The natives of towns are less migratory than those of

rural areas; 6. Females are more migrate through than males within the kingdom of their birth, but males more

frequently venture beyond; 7. Most migrants are adults: females rarely migrate out of their county of birth; 8.

22

Ravenstein’s eleventh law, namely that the major causes of migration were economic, is, on

the face of it, obvious. Progressive rural unemployment set in after 1850, and the population

fell in many places in the face of intractable persistent poverty.75 This stagnation and decline

often reflected population pressure on the availability of land. In many rural areas the

population was smaller in 1901 than it had been 50 years before. However, inert people in

the countryside experiencing considerable hardship often chose to remain on the land despite

their poor living standards. The tide of rural out-migration showed little correlation with

prosperity in agriculture in the second half of the nineteenth century. When economic

motives predominated, the ‘push’ of increasing poverty in the countryside was balanced

against the ‘pull’ exercised by the prospect of higher wages elsewhere. The decision to

migrate then represented the triumph of hope over unhappiness.76 The pressure to migrate,

however, was not always necessarily or primarily economic. For women one of the

motivations may have been the prospect of marriage. The lure of town life held attractions

for some country dwellers. Life was more intense in the town than the village, and the young

in their prime could escape from the old, the traditional family ties, and the severe restraints

on behaviour inherent in rural family life. There was also of course greater opportunity to

move in the later nineteenth century, when a tangible effect of the railway was to enable more

people to move short distances.77

Demographics of York in the Nineteenth Century

This section begins with a broad overview of some important changes which occurred in the

population of York across the nineteenth century, both in its size and in its composition. In

the two centuries before the Victorian era York was an agricultural and social centre of

Large towns grow more by migration than by natural increase; 9. Migration increases in volume as industries

and commerce develop and transport improves; 10. The major direction of migration is from rural areas to the

towns; 11. The major causes of migration are economic.

75 Richards, ‘Malthus’, pp. 54–55. J.A. Banks, ‘The contagion of numbers’, in H.J. Dyos and M. Wolff (eds),

The Victorian City: Images and Realities, volume 1 (London, 1973), p. 105. Grigg, ‘Ravenstein’, p. 158. For a

discussion of the migration of families in rural depopulation, see also: Schürer, ‘The role of the family’, p. 106.

76 Richards, ‘Malthus’, p. 46. The social and economic consequences of enclosure, agricultural depression and

unemployment in Victorian rural England are also described in G.E. Mingay, Rural Life in Victorian England

(Stroud, 1998).

77 Banks, ‘The contagion of numbers’, pp. 112-117.

23

northern England.78 It was the largest corn and market town in the country in the eighteenth

century. In fact the City’s only trading role at the beginning of the nineteenth century was as

a hub where countryside produce could be brought for sale and goods and services sold.79

Small family concerns produced what little manufacturing there was. Gentry families had

been attracted to build large town houses, and domestic servants made the biggest group of

workers in the City. The fortunes and affluence of York at this time were in decline.80 The

City corporation’s neglect of the Ouse navigation had hindered the establishment of factories,

and it no longer held the status of the northern metropolis which it had enjoyed in the

eighteenth century.81

In the early nineteenth century the inhabitants of York generally were born within the City

walls or surrounding prosperous country district. The population grew from 16,846 in 1801

to 28,842 in 1841 (an increase of 71%), attributed almost entirely to indigenous growth and

influx from towns and villages nearby. The North Eastern Railway arrived in York in 1839,

and thereafter the population of the City grew over three- and four-fold by 1881 and

1901from its size at the start of the century.82 The City had formerly been occupied by

‘resident gentry who relied for their connections with the outer world upon posting and

coaches’.83 With the arrival of steam the gentry could now travel and they left the City.

River transport, which for centuries had played to York’s advantage, was superseded by the

78 P. Brears, ‘York and the gentry: The York season and the country house’, in E. White (ed.), Feeding a City:

York. The Provision of Food from Roman Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century (Totnes, 2000), pp.

150-167. See also W.A. Armstrong, ‘A note on the household structure of mid-nineteenth-century York in

comparative perspective’, in P. Laslett and R. Wall (eds), Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge,

1972), p. 205.

79 H. Murray, ‘Rebirth and growth: Nineteenth-century York’, in E. White (ed.), Feeding a City: York. The

Provision of Food from Roman Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century (Totnes, 2000) , pp. 187-202.

80 Brears notes that York was described as ‘Poor, Proud and Pretty’ by the mid-nineteenth century (Brears,

‘York and the gentry’, p. 167). Prosperity in the form of a flourishing tourist industry was not destined to return

to York until the 1960s and 1970s.

81 The management of the affairs of the Ouse Navigation by the City Corporation are documented further in A.

Armstrong, Stability and Change in an English County Town: A social study of York 1801-51 (Cambridge,

1974), pp. 23 – 24.

82 S. Rankin and D. Thompson, York 100 1877-1977: The Story of a Station (York, 1977), p. 3. The York and

Midland Railway Company formed in 1835, an Act of Parliament was obtained in 1836, and the first train ran

on 29 May 1839. 83 B.S. Rowntree, Poverty: A Study of Town Life (1901; Bristol, 2000), p. 9.

24

railways which allowed goods to be transported easily to all inland towns. With the railway

boom there came to York new and expanding industries, particularly confectionery.

The York Registration District of the mid-nineteenth century consisted of seven subdistricts,

four of which, namely Skelton, Flaxton, Dunnington and Escrick, comprised only rural areas

with no urban component.84 The other three subdistricts, namely Bootham, Walmgate and

Micklegate, although each also lay predominantly in the countryside around the City,

encompassed between them the entire urban population of York. Elite family groups in

Victorian York tended to reside in the central districts. There were some differences in

residence according to family, occupational and ethnic groups. These configurations had

deep historical roots in the City. However, distinct neighbourhoods of similar class residents,

such as exist in modern York, did not exist in the Victorian City. Working class ghettos were

not a feature of York, and the professional and wealthy merchant classes had not abandoned

less salubrious central districts of the City. Most subdistricts housed a significant

representation of both higher class and labouring residents. However, these socially polarised

families were not distributed randomly, and there were broad differences in social class

between the subdistrict of Walmgate on the one hand, and Bootham and Micklegate on the

other (Figure 1).85

Armstrong’s classic monograph on the population of York over the first half of the nineteenth

century shows that although there was a tendency for different social classes of families to

mix in different areas of the City, there was some class differential between Walmgate and

Bootham/Micklegate. Significantly more household heads that had been born in York in

social classes I and II lived in Bootham or Micklegate in 1851 than in Walmgate. The

distribution of the lower social classes at that census, however, was more evenly spread, and

in fact, there were relatively more lower social class families in Micklegate than in

Walmgate. Armstrong's analysis of the Registrar General’s annual reports shows that death

rates in Walmgate were consistently higher than those of the other two subdistricts between

1843 and 1851, and that Micklegate had a lower mortality throughout this period than the

84 Armstrong, Stability and Change, pp. 76 – 81. Similarly in the nearby City of Leeds, Ward has found

residential patterns of people with middle-class occupations alongside working-class neighbours between 1841

and 1871: D. Ward, ‘Environs and neighbours in the “Two Nations” residential differentiation in mid-nineteenth

century Leeds’, Journal of Historical Geography, 6 (1980), p. 133.

85 The growth of population in York, including the Irish immigrants, is described in: Armstrong, Stability and

Change, pp. 76 – 107.

25

other two urban subdistricts. Laycock's detailed analysis of the population of York around

1840 found that the death rate from all causes (and specifically from epidemics) and the child

death rate were significantly higher in Walmgate than in the other two subdistricts.86

Figure 1. Six York Parishes in 1852

The map highlights the parish of St Mary Bishophill Junior (SMBJ) in Micklegate, and 5 parishes in Walmgate:

1, St George; 2, St Peter le Willows; 3, St Stephen; 4, St Margaret; 5, St Denys. The map also shows the

confluence of the Ouse and Foss, the City walls (thick black line), railway lines and station (orange), main

streets (light blue), and Minster and churches (black).87

86 Mortality data are found in: Armstrong, Stability and Change, pp. 108 – 153.

87 Redrawn from Map 12 in: K.D. Lilley (ed.), The British Historic Towns Atlas, Volume V, York (York, 2015).

26

York in 1841, before the arrival of the famine immigrants, housed 430 people who had been

born in Ireland.88 The Irish were distributed throughout all but one of York's 34 parishes,

although it was notable even then that the immigrants tended to concentrate in the poorest

districts. Finnegan notes that their concentration was even more apparent in individual streets

and courts in the City. These immigrants, however, were represented in every social class,

although more than a quarter were present in the lowest social class. They were also

employed in a wide variety of occupations, and less than a quarter of this population were

labourers. The small Irish community of York in 1840, although living in overcrowded

unhealthy slums similar to those of the non-Irish poor, did not stand out from the rest of

York's population.

Armstrong took data from his own calculations of mortality rates, the value of properties

from rate assessments and property taxes and the proportion of all higher class household

heads, and confirmed that Walmgate was indeed the least favourable subdistrict as regards

mortality rates. The correlation is confirmed between the worst drainage, highest death rate,

and the highest proportion of poor households. A compilation of some of York’s nineteenth-

century demographics is presented in Table 1. However, Amstrong has shown that the

subdistrict with the most favourable mortality rate, namely Micklegate, was not the

subdistrict where individual wealth was highest and where most upper-class householders

lived. Micklegate housed a large component of lower middle-class families and respectable

artisans. Bootham, in fact, had the highest percentage of upper-class households, and the

highest rateable and taxable assessments of its properties. Although Bootham boasted several

fashionable high-class streets in the City, it also contained the crowded market and

commercial district of the City and one particular quarter, the Bedern, where squalor and

poverty surpassed even the worst streets in Walmgate. Armstrong has argued that higher-

class people tended to live in more sanitary districts of the City, but it was place of residence

rather than social class and wealth which was more important in explaining differential

mortality.89

88 See F. Finnegan, Poverty and Prejudice: A Study of Irish Immigrants in York 1840-1875 (Cork, 1982), pp. 5 –

16 for York’s pre-famine Irish community.

89 Armstrong, Stability and Change, pp. 129 – 139.

27

WALMGATE BOOTHAM MICKLEGATE

1 % York-born household heads in Class I-II in 1851

census sample

12 29.2 27.3

% York-born household heads in Class IV-V in 1851

census sample

21.6

19.1

25.5

2 Death rate per 1000 in Walmgate (with Hungate) in

1898

27.8 Death rate across York

18.5 in 1898

Infant death rate per 1000 in Walmgate (with

Hungate) in 1898

247

Infant death rate across York

175 in 1898

3 Death rate per 1000 in 1839-41 27.7 25.4 25.6

Infant death rate per 1000 in

1839-41

104.1

100.9

84.0

4 Average mortality rate 1841-51

% of all rate assessments £10 or over 1850-51

Annual value of house property divided by population

1841

% Household heads in Class I-II in 1851 census

sample

27.2

15.3

£2.41

15.8

24.9

56.2

£3.35

27.9

21.4

35.7

£3.10

24.2

5 Crude birth rates 1839-41

Births per 1000 females aged 15-44 in 1850-52

Illegitimate births per 1000 females aged 15-44 in

1850-52

32.2

157.4

12.2

28.9

94.9

7.2

27.1

109.3

5.4

6 % of children attending school by age group in 1826

Aged 6-10

Aged 10-12

70.8

61.8

78.1

70.2

78.3

74.3

1851 Census 1901 Census

Population Size No. Irish born Population Size

Walmgate

St George

2095

412

2212

Micklegate

SMBJ (part of)

3526

121

Holgate

(Part of SMBJ) 571

(St Paul’s) 3302

Table 1. Demographics of Nineteenth-century York

28

Fertility, however, may have depended more on the social than the physical environment.90

Where families lived in York had more influence on their health than their income or status.

Some higher class residents of the City were probably influenced by commercial or other

factors to live in districts which generally fell short of their expectations.

The 1840s were a turning point in the demographic history of York. This decade heralded

two mass migrations into the City, one driven by the Industrial Revolution and the other by

an ecological disaster. The arrival of the railway brought not only a revolutionary mode of

transport, but also an expansive workforce to service this new burgeoning industry. The

other influx was not a workforce, but a desperate impoverished people fleeing the potato

famine in Ireland.

The first wave of starving famine immigrants began to arrive in York in late 1846.91 The

Irish in York in 1851 have been estimated at 7.2% of the population, a comparable level with

other towns in central and north east England.92 The Irish arrivals tended to cluster in the

lowest two social classes, and they tended to form a homogeneous group of low social class

people wherever they were encountered. There was a high proportion of Irish immigrants in

Walmgate Ward. The parishes of St George, St Margaret, St Peter le Willows and St Dennis

were heavily populated by these immigrants. Other enclaves of these people were in the

Bedern and in the Water Lanes in St Mary Castlegate. They tended to colonise particular

streets or blocks of buildings, possibly adopting distinctive cohesive residential patterns at the

street or even court level.

The other wave of mass migration into York in mid-nineteenth century was the employees of

the North Eastern Railway Company. Just as Walmgate attracted poor Irish immigrants,

Micklegate tended to attract skilled railwaymen, many of whom came from the Northern

90 E. Garrett, A. Reid, K. Schürer and S. Szreter, Changing Family Size in England and Wales: Place, Class and

Demography, 1891 – 1911 (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 11 and 399. Szreter has shown that the same social class

could show different fertility depending upon place of residence. 'Where a couple lived largely dictated the life

chances of their children; who they lived amongst provided their guidelines for “acceptable” behaviour in … the

number of children they were likely to have.’

91 Finnegan, Poverty and Prejudice, pp. 5 – 38.

92 Finnegan, Poverty and Prejudice, p. 69; levels in other towns have been estimated as: Manchester 13.1%,

Bradford 8.9%, Leeds 4.9%, Preston 7.4% and Bolton 7.3% (R. Swift (ed.), Irish Migrants in Britain 1815 –

1914: A Documentary History (Cork, 2009), p. 35).

29

counties of Northumberland and Durham.93 The houses in the railway development were

typically through two-up two-down terraced housing, with back and front door access and a

small backyard with a privy.94 They were built to accommodate the new arrivals in straight

lines in former rectangular fields outside the City walls with the aim of simplifying the

building process, maximising the use of land, and reducing costs.

Rowntree’s pioneering study of poverty in York at the end of the nineteenth century took in

the railway and Irish enclaves and confirmed the mix of lower-class households across the

City. His surveyors visited areas in the vicinity of the railway, and found ‘row after row of

small uninteresting two-storeyed houses, built of dingy York bricks, and roofed with slates,

with here and there a small shop’. Their description of the slum dwellings at the other end of

the working-class housing scale was less precise but just as revealing: they had the ‘general

appearance of dilapidation and carelessness … of the condition and character of the

tenants’.95 Rowntree distinguished between working-class households and others on the basis

of whether they kept servants, and found that 71% of the population were working class by

this definition. Most of the poor lived within the historic City walls. The standard of living

of working-class families was grouped into four categories on the basis of weekly income in

this survey. Families in each category were scattered over all the working-class areas of the

City, and houses in the lower two categories of income were found in the slum districts.

Some districts were populated by families only in the highest working-class income band,

chiefly skilled workers and those holding positions with some responsibility, including

railway workers.96

93 Armstrong, Stability and Change, p. 94.

94 R. Rodger, Housing in Urban Britain, 1780-1914 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 30 – 34.

95 Rowntree, Poverty, pp. 202 & 154. These were Rowntree’s descriptions of houses in the Leeman Road

district of York alongside the railway approach to the station, and of the Walmgate district within the City walls.

Rowntree’s survey of York in the autumn of 1899 took details from 11,560 families living in 388 streets within

a total population of 46,754 people. His enquiry collected information about housing, occupation, income and

number and age of children of every wage-earning family (Rowntree, Poverty, p. vii).

96 Rowntree, Poverty, pp. 26 - 76. Rowntree tells us that this highest category (D) housed ‘thoughtful’ men,

leaders of Trade Unions, the Co-operative Movement, and Friendly Societies. Such a diffuse scattering of

housing of different standards did not obtain in other Victorian cities, where there tended to be slums in the

centre, respectable working-class housing in the next ring, and middle-class villas at the periphery (Rodger,

Housing, p.3).

30

These surveys of the population of York in the nineteenth century show that Walmgate

without doubt was the most impoverished subdistrict of the City, and that life expectancy was

highest in Micklegate. The parish of St George in Walmgate showed the largest influx of

Irish famine immigrants of any of the York parishes. Its population doubled in the decade

after 1841, although only a small fraction of this increase is attributable to the influx of the

Irish. The parish of St Mary Bishophill Junior in Micklegate subdistrict included the area of

Holgate (later the parish of St Paul) whose land and population were disrupted in the later

nineteenth century by the arrival of the railway and its workers (see Table 1). After the influx

of these immigrants, Rowntree found that poverty levels in similar streets neighbouring

Holgate were somewhat higher than the average over the City as a whole, but considerably

lower than in Walmgate within the City walls.97

Two parishes in the subdistricts of Walmgate and Micklegate were chosen for this study of

kinship families. The parishes were chosen because of their wide variety of characteristics,

namely somewhat polarised demographics in the first half of the nineteenth century, and then

the arrival of two large migrant populations in the second half of the century, one

impoverished and in flight from a natural disaster in Ireland and the other wealthy by

comparison and attracted to York by an opportunity created by the new railway industry. The

streets studied in Holgate are the working-class terraced housing of St Pauls Terrace and

adjoining Railway Terrace, and the more prosperous and elite housing of Holgate Road and

St Paul’s Square. The streets studied in Walmgate are the slum terraced housing of Long

Close Lane and adjoining Hope Street. Subsequent chapters examine in detail these streets

and the families that lived in them.

Demographics of Swaledale in the Nineteenth Century

Swaledale, the most northerly and remote of the Yorkshire Pennine Dales, is today a sparsely

populated landscape. There is little human presence. This solitude was not always the case,

however, and the scars of Victorian lead mining on the dalesides are a visible reminder of a

past age of intense activity. The valley then was a turmoil of heavy industry (Figure 2).

97 Rowntree, Poverty, p. 202. Such streets included parts of Nunnery Lane and Leeman Road, both similar in

housing style to the railway streets of Holgate. 37% of the population of areas such as these were living in

poverty, compared with 28% of the total population of the City and 69% of the population of Walmgate within

the City walls.

31

Figure 2. Hay meadows near Muker village in Upper Swaledale

The scars of Swinnergill lead mine (arrow) are visible on the daleside in the far distance.

Extensive exploration of the mineral resources of the dale before the Victorian era had

uncovered a rich lead-mining field by the middle of the eighteenth century. Most of the

potentially lucrative veins lay in an east-west complex on the north side of the Swale. By the

last two decades of this century, however, the industry faced an economic crisis. The driving

of levels into veins of lead was an expensive business, and the ore which could be extracted

at a profitable cost approached exhaustion.98

Swaledale includes several townships within four districts, namely sparsely populated Muker

in the uppermost westerly part of the dale, Melbecks, Arkengarthdale, and Reeth, the eastern

lower part of the dale (Figure 3). All of these districts were mined at the beginning of the

nineteenth century. Their profitability depended more upon the fortunes of development and

the discovery of new seams than upon short-term price fluctuations. Small changes in price

affected profit margins and the amount of money available for prospecting. A company

98 R. Fieldhouse and B. Jennings, A History of Richmond and Swaledale (1978, Chichester, 2005), pp. 204 –

205. Swaledale lead-mining deeds, leases, accounts and papers from the nineteenth century are held at:

NYCRO, ZLB.

32

fortunate enough to find a rich deposit of ore could make a profit even with lead at a low

price, but a high price would not ensure prosperity if the workings were meagre. Output and

profits varied from year to year.

Prices of lead rose towards the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, fell in a post-war

depression, but recovered thereafter to reach a peak in 1825. However, all the lead-mining

areas of Britain suffered a prolonged depression beginning with the general trade slump of

1826. Trade recovered in the dale in 1827, but the price of lead continued to fall. A major

cause of the decline was competition in the market from lead exported from Spain. The

depression lifted to an extent in the 1830s in the Swaledale mines when they were managed

effectively by a small group of local investors. However, the terminal collapse of the

industry set in when the main seams of lead in the major mines became exhausted in the late

1870s. The demise was a slow process, picking off districts and townships selectively. The

mines in Muker failed early, the Old Gang mine in Melbecks between 1871 and 1891, and the

Arkengarthdale mines between 1881 and 1901. The mines were finally abandoned at the

outbreak of the Great War in 1914.99

99 A. Raistrick, Mines and Miners of Swaledale (Clapham, 1955); Fieldhouse and Jennings, History of Richmond

and Swaledale, pp. 218 – 219 & 226 – 228. British exports of lead averaged 18,000 tons a year in the years

1816-20. They fell to about 10,000 tons a year in 1829-33. Lead production in Spain and other countries had

increased significantly by the late 1870s. From being the world’s largest producer of lead in the 1820s, Britain

by 1880 imported nearly twice as much lead as was mined at home.

33

Figure 3. The four districts, villages and River Swale in Upper Swaledale

(Redrawn from the OS map of Swaledale 1856-7, original magnification six-inch to the mile

(1:10,560))

The population of Swaledale enjoyed rapid growth in the early decades of the nineteenth

century, reaching a peak in 1821 (Figure 4). By 1911 Swaledale had lost two thirds of its

population since this summit almost a century before.100 The strength of the dale’s

agricultural base enabled the economy to survive this industrial and demographic collapse.

Landholding in Swaledale in the nineteenth century was not dominated by large estates or

aristocratic control.101 There was agricultural self-sufficiency and a buoyant non-agricultural

workforce such that local demand for both owning and renting small plots of land was high.

Competition for the limited proportion of cultivated land in this upland landscape remained

100 C. Hallas, Rural Responses to Industrialization: The North Yorkshire Pennines 1790-1914 (Bern, 1999), pp.

16 – 50.

101C.S. Hallas, ‘Yeomen and peasants? Landownership patterns in the North Yorkshire Pennines, c. 1770 –

1900’, Rural History, 9 (1998), p. 157.

34

strong even after the collapse of the lead industry. Open field farming had virtually

disappeared from Swaledale by the seventeenth century, and arable farming was almost non-

existent in the upper dale in the 1800s. There were only about 120 acres of ploughing in

Swaledale above Grinton during the 1820s and 200 acres in Grinton parish in 1840, most of

which was at Reeth.102 The predominant category of landowner in the nineteenth century

was the lesser yeoman and small proprietor.103 Many owners of medium-sized estates, while

occupying part of their land, also let some of their holding at relatively high rents and

engaged in other activities such as lead mining or the textile industry.

In the mid-nineteenth century 25.1% of the occupied population of Swaledale owned some

land but this proportion had fallen to 9.6% by the 1870s.104 The changing status or

occupations of individuals are noted in the censuses and directories.105 Many yeomen had a

diversity of activities including lead and coal mining. Similarly where the lead industry

predominated small owner-occupied holdings were popular as a secondary source of income

and as a buffer against hard times in the mining industry. As miners sold their plots of land

and left the dale, small yeomen were able to expand their holdings. As lead mining went into

decline and demand for land from dual-occupation lead miners fell, the overall number of

small owned holdings also fell. The pattern of landholding was complicated further by the

practice of primogeniture which had become the dominant mode of inheritance by the

nineteenth century.106 Inheritors of small subdivided holdings could be constrained to sell

their apportionment, encouraging the consolidation of ownership to holdings of moderate size

of widely dispersed lands.

102 M. Hartley and J. Ingilby, Life and Tradition in the Yorkshire Dales (London, 1968); Fieldhouse and

Jennings, History of Richmond and Swaledale, p. 466.

103 Owners in 1873 in this category held 73% of Swaledale excluding common land (Hallas, ‘Yeomen and

peasants?’ p. 160); common land comprised at least 60% of the total area (W.G. Hoskins and L.D. Stamp, The

Common Land of England and Wales (London, 1963), pp. 340 – 341).

104 Hallas, ‘Yeomen and peasants?’, p. 165.

105 The census enumerators in Swaledale recorded these household heads as ‘farmer’, ‘lead miner’ and ‘lead

miner and farmer’, and these descriptions have been used in the tables and figures for specific individuals in this

study. Householders and enumerators were instructed to list occupations in order of importance, the Census

Report claiming that the ‘first occupation was generally taken’ (P.M. Tillot, ‘Sources of inaccuracy in the 1851

and 1861 censuses’, in E.A. Wrigley (ed.), Nineteenth-century Society: Essays in the Use of Quantitative

Methods for the Study of Social Data (Cambridge, 1972), p. 117).

106 Hallas, ‘Yeomen and peasants?’, pp. 161 – 162.

35

Owner-occupiers of land showed a high degree of resilience in confronting the initial impact

of the late nineteenth-century depression. Small owners were particularly vulnerable,

however, and as the population declined and the impact of national agricultural depression

took effect they sold their holdings.107 In the depths of the 1890s depression proportionally

more dalesmen were farming the land they owned, but the protracted nature of the depression

eventually took its toll. Increasing numbers of owner-occupiers were obliged to sell their

land so that by 1917 the proportion of dalesmen renting their holdings exceeded a previous

peak of 1887.108

Figure 4. Population of Swaledale during the nineteenth century

The population trends in Swaledale reflect the dale's reliance upon the lead mining

industry.109 In the early years of the nineteenth century, the greatest growth in population

occurred in townships with a substantial lead industry; similarly, the most severe losses in the

second half of the century occurred in those townships where the lead industry had been most

107 Hallas, ‘Yeomen and peasants?’, pp. 161 – 168.

108 Proportion of dalesmen renting their holdings in 1915 = 96.6; in 1887 = 93.7; Table 6 in Hallas, ‘Yeomen

and peasants?’, p. 168.

109 See ‘Lead mining in Swaledale since 1540’, in Fieldhouse and Jennings, History of Richmond and

Swaledale, pp. 204 – 231.

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

To

tal P

opula

tio

n

Year

36

influential. The population changes thus varied considerably between townships. The entire

dale suffered severe difficulties following the near total collapse of its lead industry towards

the end of the nineteenth century, when a large proportion of the population left the dale.

The dale experienced considerable ebbs and flows of migration over the course of the

nineteenth century. The Melbecks and Arkengarthdale regions experienced a considerable

influx of migrants at the end of the eighteenth century and in the first decade of the

nineteenth. In Arkengarthdale the population increase is attributed to an influx of

mineworkers from the agricultural districts of the North Riding and South Durham. Those

miners who were already established when the migrants arrived retained their smallholding.

However, most of the migrants were unable to rent a holding of land. The population growth

caused poor relief expenditure to rise, particularly when there was a slump in the mines for

any reason.110 More than half the paupers in Reeth in 1817 were migrant miners. The

pressures felt by lead-mining parishes were aggravated by the decision taken in 1816 to

exempt the lead mines from poor rates. The mine owners were able to avoid this liability to

pay rates until 1874, throwing the burden onto the occupiers of land. Poor miners with a dual

occupation on the land then subsidised their inadequate earnings at the mines from the rates

they had contributed from their smallholdings.

Out-migration from the Yorkshire mines in the economic depression of the 1820s was

predominantly to the textile or mixed textile coal districts of Lancashire and the West Riding

of Yorkshire.111 The poorest families generally could not raise enough capital to leave, and

early migrants were from the farming classes rather than labourers. Some families emigrated

to the United States or Canada, with a further wave of emigration in the early 1840s to North

America.112 Waves of migration occurred particularly in the 1830s, 1840s, 1870s and 1880s,

110 See ‘Parish relief’ and ‘Poor law unions’, in Fieldhouse and Jennings, History of Richmond and Swaledale,

pp. 289 – 316.

111 The social conditions and population movements in the mining areas in decline are described in: Raistrick

and Jennings, A History of Lead Mining, pp. 324 – 327. The first farmers and tradesmen to emigrate to America

in the late 1820s and 1830s were men with capital released by the sale of farms (Richards, ‘Malthus’, p. 53).

Morris suggests that recent arrivals to the dales without mining or farming work were the first to migrate to the

mills of Lancashire or South Yorkshire or the coalfields from about 1830 (D. Morris, The Dalesmen of the

Mississippi River (York, 1989), p.2.). See also M. Hartley and J. Ingilby, Dales Memories (Clapham, 1986).

112 See C.J. Erickson, ‘Emigration from the British Isles to the U.S.A. in 1841: Part I. Emigration from the

British Isles’, Population Studies, 43 (1989), p. 347, and C.J. Erickson, ‘Emigration from the British Isles to the

U.S.A. in 1841: Part II. Who were the English emigrants’, Population Studies, 44 (1990), p. 21.

37

this final decade accounting for more than a third of the total migration from Wensleydale

and Swaledale.113 Lead miners were the most mobile section of the population.114

Sometimes parishes offered financial encouragement to their poor to emigrate.115 On the

other hand, parishes may have found themselves liable for relieving paupers who had

emigrated but had not been accepted in their adopted residence. Of 77 adults receiving

pensions from Muker in 1835, for example, only 33 lived in the township: 18 others lived

elsewhere in the dale and 18 in the industrial towns of the West Riding of Yorkshire and

Lancashire. In the same parish of Muker inhabitants agreed not to sell land to immigrants,

thus preventing them from obtaining legal settlement and an entitlement to relief. The

emigrant families of the later depression towards the end of the century left for the same areas

as their predecessors in general, namely to East Lancashire and the industrial West Riding.

The Burnley area of Lancashire attracted a substantial influx, with work in the coal mines and

textile mills. A smaller proportion of the migrants emigrated abroad, on this occasion to

Australia as well as North America.116

Numerous dales yeomen families persisted and survived throughout this century. Many were

anxious to remain in the dale even when this was not their best chance of survival. They drew

increasingly during this period on members of their family to provide the agricultural

workforce.117 The declining population lived off larger plots of land during the lead

industry’s demise. Many deserted farms and cottages, most of late eighteenth or nineteenth

century origin, today lie high on the daleside as reminders of an era long gone. Lead mining

in this community has now disappeared, and so too almost has the small family farm.

*

113 Hallas, Rural Responses to Industrialization, p. 274 and 292. Migration to Lancashire also increased in the

1890s as the local economy there boomed; see W.H. Long and G.M. Davies, Farm Life in a Yorkshire Dale

(Clapham, 1948).

114 C.S. Hallas, ‘Migration in nineteenth-century Wensleydale and Swaledale’, Northern History, 27 (1991), p.

153 – 155.

115 See G. Howells, ‘“For I was tired of England sir”: English pauper emigrant strategies, 1834 – 1860’, Social

History, 23 (1998), p. 181.

116 NYCRO, ZRD: Muker select vestry and overseers account book 1797 – 1840, Muker select vestry minutes

1819 – 1837; Fieldhouse and Jennings, History of Richmond and Swaledale, pp. 301 – 303.

117 Hallas, Rural Responses to Industrialization, pp. 26, 71 and 294; Richards, ‘Malthus’, p. 58.

38

This Introduction has attempted to place rural and urban kinship families in historical context

and to consider some migrations into York and out of Swaledale. Chapter 2 describes a novel

method of quantifying, tracking and comparing these families.

39

Chapter 2

Surname Indices: Concept and Application

‘… you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and

there are families.’1

Measurements of Kinship

A substantial body of literature links the study of surnames with the history of the family and

population change. All methods of measuring surname density and drawing inferences about

migration have their sampling problems and particular disadvantages. This thesis adds to the

debate with a novel method of exploiting surname densities that is then used to address the

research questions posed in the Introduction.

Many studies aim to address the stability of populations and the identity, behaviour and

divisions of villages, towns, parishes or regions by examining the distribution and density of

individuals with the same surname in the populations.2 Lasker and others have attempted to

measure the degree of ‘biological’ or genetic kinship between and within communities

subject to past migrations by estimating the frequencies of individuals with shared surnames.3

1 Margaret Thatcher, former British Prime Minister, talking to Women's Own magazine, 31.10.1987.

2 G. Redmonds, T. King and D. Hey, Surnames, DNA, and Family History (Oxford, 2011); S. and D. Postles,

‘Surnames and stability: a detailed case study’, in D. Hooke and D. Postles (eds), Names, Time and Place.

Essays in Memory of Richard McKinley (Oxford, 2003), p.193; G. Lasker, ‘Using surnames to analyse

population structure’, in D. Postles (ed.), Naming, Society and Regional Identity (Oxford, 2002), p. 5; K.

Schürer, ‘Surnames and the search for regions’, Local Population Studies, 72 (2004), p. 50; D. Hey, ‘The local

history of family names’, The Local Historian, 27 (1997), p. i; R. Watson, ‘A study of surname distribution in a

group of Cambridgeshire parishes 1538 – 1840’, Local Population Studies, 15 (1975), p. 23; K.D.M. Snell,

‘English rural societies and geographic marital endogamy, 1700 – 1837’, Economic History Review, 55 (2002),

p. 262; D.S. Smith, ‘“All in some degree related to each other”: A demographic and comparative resolution of

the anomaly of New England kinship’, The American Historical Review, 94 (1989), p. 44. See also E.A.

Wrigley, Population and History (1969, London, 1973); and D.E.C. Eversley, P. Laslett and E.A. Wrigley, An

Introduction to English Historical Demography: From the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century (London, 1966).

3 G.W. Lasker, ‘A coefficient of relationship by isonymy: a method for estimating the genetic relationship

between populations’, Human Biology, 49 (1977), p. 489; J.H. Relethford, ‘Estimation of kinship and genetic

distance from surnames’, Human Biology , 60 (1988), p. 475; D. Souden and G. Lasker, ‘Biological inter-

relationships between parishes in East Kent: An analysis of marriage duty act returns for 1705’, Local

Population Studies, 21 (1978), p. 30; Küchemann, G.W. Lasker and D.I.Smith, ‘Historical changes in the

coefficient or relationship by isonymy among the populations of the Otmoor villages’, Human Biology, 51

(1979), p. 63; G.W. Lasker, ‘Evidence from surnames on the population structure of villages surrounding the

Otmoor’, in G.A. Harrison (ed.), The Human Biology of the English Village (Oxford, 1995), p. 137; M.T. Smith

and B.L. Hudson, ‘Isonymic relationships in the parish of Fylingdales, North Yorkshire in 1851’, Annals of

Human Biology, 11 (1984), p. 141; M.T. Smith, B.L. Smith and W.R. Williams, ‘Changing isonymic

40

Smith and colleagues have developed the concept of random isonymy, by which a score

obtained by multiplying the relative frequency of every surname in one population by the

relative frequency of the same surname in another population quantifies the surname

distributions between the two.4 A map subsequently generated by a statistical technique,

non-metrical multidimensional scaling, visualises the geographical distribution of surnames.

Other authors including Anderson have looked at ‘functional’ or ‘behavioural’ kinship within

a community with an analysis of the frequency of people with the same surname.5 Another

analytical line of enquiry into kin relations, the technique of micro-simulation, although

diverting from the situation in real historical communities or named individuals, uses the

rates of fertility, nuptiality and mortality in a population to estimate the number of kin a

person would possess during different stages of the life cycle.6

Many of the studies of kin outlined above have developed from an analysis of individuals in a

population with the same surname. These enquiries permit exploration of kinship ties after

the identification of individuals. The concept of surname indices developed in this thesis,

however, departs from this approach. The indices measure not the density of people, but the

density of surnames. They identify a subgroup of kin, i.e. those with the same surname,

before the identification of the individuals, whose connections are then explored with

reference to the censuses and family reconstitution techniques once the numerical analysis of

relationships in Fylingdales parish, North Yorkshire, 1841 – 1881’, Annals of Human Biology, 11 (1984), p.

449; M. Smith, ‘The inference of genetic structure and the micro-evolutionary process from the distribution and

changing pattern of surnames’, in D. Postles (ed.), Naming, Society and Regional Identity (Oxford, 2002), p. 25.

4 M.T. Smith and D.M. MacRaild, ‘Nineteenth-century population structure of Ireland and of the Irish in

England and Wales: an analysis by isonymy’, American Journal of Human Biology, 21 (2009), p. 283; M. Smith

and D.M. MacRaild, ‘The origins of the Irish in Northern England: an isonymic analysis of data from the 1881

census’, Immigrants & Minorities, 27 (2009), p. 152.

5 M. Anderson, Family Structure in Nineteenth Century Lancashire (Cambridge, 1971), p. 61. Anderson’s

labour-intensive method of finding kin by trawling through surnames in census data suffers from serious

disadvantages, not least the difficulty in covering the whole population and the lack of specificity in birthplaces.

See also A. Plakans, ‘Kinship’, in P.N. Stearns (ed.), Encyclopedia of European Social History from 1350 to

2000 (New York, 2001), p. 101 for a discussion of approaches to measurement and meaning of kinship.

6 R. Wall, ‘Economic collaboration of family members within and beyond households in English society, 1600 –

2000’, Continuity and Change, 25 (2010), p. 95; Z. Zhao, ‘The demographic transition in Victorian England in

English kinship networks’, Continuity and Change, 11 (1996), p. 243; M. Murphy, ‘Changes in family and

kinship networks consequent on the demographic transitions in England and Wales’, Continuity and Change, 25

(2010), p. 109; J.E. Smith and J.E. Oeppen, ‘Estimating numbers of kin in historical England using demographic

microsimulation’, in D. Reher and R.S. Schofield (eds), Old and New Methods in Historical Demography

(Oxford, 1993), p. 280.

41

the whole population has been completed. Errors that may be introduced into a study by the

failure to identify specific individuals in a population before an analysis is undertaken are

thus avoided. The indices cannot be interpreted with any degree of accuracy without

reference to the size and number of groups of people with the same surname from which the

indices have been derived. Referral back to the listings of all these individuals in the

transcripts from which they have been taken minimises the theoretical risks of misinterpreting

the number or sizes of kinship families at each data point in the surname indices.7 This

method allows the measurement of the size of possible kin groups at different or consecutive

points in historical time in the same population, and comparisons between different

populations. How these indices changed over time or varied between groups of people can

provide unforeseen insights into communal motivations and behaviour.

Concept of Surname Indices

This chapter explains the new concept and idea, and goes on to illustrate the method by

relating changes in surname and family density to an historical event through family

reconstitution methods in two rural parishes near York. The limitations and disadvantages of

the technique are described in detail. Kinship families in this context indicate households in a

community led by people with the same surname, generated by descent or marriage. In

contrast isolated families refer to those households headed by an individual with a surname

unique in the neighbourhood. An index is described in which the number of specific

surnames is assessed in relation to the total number of individuals in the population. A

population with a small number of surnames relative to its size contains a relatively large

family or a large number of isonymic families (families with the same surname); by contrast,

a population with a large number of surnames relative to its size may contain relatively few

kin networks. As an extreme hypothetical example, if there is only one surname in a

population of 100 individuals, it is probable that all these individuals belong to one kinship

family (a low index); if, on the other hand, there are 100 surnames in this population, then

there are present 100 isolated but no kinship families (a high index). The lower the index, the

lower is the density of isolated surnames; or the larger is the size or number of probable kin

groups. The higher the index, the greater is the concentration of isolated families with few

7 Surname indices are thus applicable only to micro-historical studies. Cheshire discussed the difficulty of

interpreting the relative number of surnames per head of population without knowledge of the frequency

distribution of surnames: J.A. Cheshire, ‘Surnames Diversity’, in ‘Population Structure and the Spatial Analysis

of Surnames’ (unpub. PhD thesis, UCL Department of Geography, 2011), pp. 82 – 84.

42

kin networks. This index was used to provide a means of assessing whether a population

may have harboured a relatively large or small number of kinship families. Over the course

of the nineteenth century, migration into a parish, industrialisation and growth of a more

complex occupational mix would tend to dilute the concentration of surnames in a rural

village and elevate such an index.8

The index was therefore named a ‘surname index’ for each population examined, and was

defined as the number of surnames divided by the size of the population, and the figure

multiplied by 100 in order to avoid presentation as a fraction. The surname index may be

derived from a list of names in any defined population either at a point in time or over a

period of time, the denominator (the number of individuals) varying according to the

population under examination. The index bears no relation to the number of individuals with

a particular surname (in other words, it differs from surname density), and it is not

proportional to the size of the population. A surname index derived from census data gives

the proportion of people with shared surnames in a population, and no inherent information

on the number or sizes of groups of individuals with the same surname; the interpretation of

census surname indices therefore depends on other qualitative information on families

gathered from census enumeration data and family reconstitutions. Indices varying over a

period of time also give no insights into the cause of any change in population size, for

example migration or altered fertility. Examples of lists of people from whom surname

indices may be calculated include the parish population taken from a decennial census,

baptisms recorded in a parish register, and surviving memorials in a graveyard. Such indices

may therefore provide information on different sections of the same community.

Census, Fathers’ and Memorial Surname Indices

This section describes the methods by which surname indices are calculated from people

listed in census enumerators’ books, fathers listed in parish baptismal registers, and people

memorialised on gravestones.

The forename and surname and ages of all the people in these listings are transcribed into

separate fields in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The surnames are then sorted into

8 Smith discusses the application of quantitative studies of surname distributions to historical questions related

to industrial development, land tenure and inheritance, enclosure and epidemic disease in: M. Smith, ‘Isonymy

analysis: The potential for application of quantitative analysis of surname distributions to problems in historical

research’, in M. Smith (ed.), Human Biology and History (London, 2002), p. 112.

43

alphabetical order. Duplicate surnames are removed from this list, and the total number of

surnames in the population is then counted. This is related to the number of people in the

population to derive the surname index. Referral back to the sorted spreadsheet of surnames

of every individual then provides the number and sizes of groups of people sharing the same

surname. These groups of people found at each census are tracked backwards and forwards

at other censuses and reproduced in Appendices in this thesis. The identification of specific

groups of people with the same surname at each data-point in the surname index plots

minimises the risk of misinterpreting changes in surname indices over time or between

populations.

1. Census Surname Indices (CSIs): Isonymic, Kinship and Isolated Families

Census surname indices are measured in a population from the census data for the decennial

census years of 1841 onwards. The surnames in the census are sorted into alphabetical order,

and the number of surnames (ie not the number of individuals with a particular surname) is

measured in relation to the total number of people in the population. Lower surname indices

calculated from such census data imply fewer surnames in the parish and thereby larger or

more numerous potential kinship families. Higher indices imply a more dilute concentration

of surnames and fewer potential kinship families in the study group.

The finding of kinship families in a population, ie several households headed by closely

related people with the same surname, implies the growth or immigration of households from

the same or other generations of the same family. The finding of isolated families, ie

households with a surname unique in the population, implies that the family had not had the

desire or capability of forming more than one household. A falling census surname index

over time thereby suggests the net growth of kinship families, and a rising census surname

index over time implies the net influx of isolated families.

Once census surname indices have been plotted over time in a parish, comparisons in family

dynamics may be made and correlations attempted with historical events such as enclosure of

the fields or mass migration. Comparisons of the size and/or number of isonymic families are

also then possible with other parishes and regions, and with surname indices derived from

other data.

44

CSI derived from census household heads (CSI(H))

This index relates the number of surnames of household heads (HHs) to the total number of

household heads. It is the most sensitive index of potential kinship families in the population

as it is not affected by differences in fertility or the retention of children in households. The

lower the index the greater is the number of families headed by a person with a shared

surname.

CSI derived from adult census population (CSI(A))

This index relates the number of surnames of adults (16 years and older) to the total number

of adults. In comparison with the index derived from household heads, the number of

additional surnames is always lower than the number of additional people, since adults in a

household often share the same surname as the household head. Consequently CSI(A) is

always smaller than CSI(H) from the same population.

CSI derived from total census population (CSI(T))

This index relates the number of surnames of all individuals to the total number of people

(adults and children) in a population. In comparison with the index derived from adults only,

the number of additional surnames of children is always far lower than the number of

additional children, since almost all children in a household share the same surname as an

adult. Consequently CSI(T) is always smaller than CSI(A) in a population.

The ratio of the total number of people in a population (denominator of SI(T)) to the number

of household heads gives the average number of people per household (or mean household

size (MHS)). This definition of household size gives no indication of the relationship of

individuals in the household to the household head.9 The ratio of the number of adults in a

9 MHS as derived from Surname Index calculations cannot therefore be compared with MHS in some other

studies. Schürer quotes Laslett’s definition of household as ‘a head, plus a spouse if present, any co-resident

children and other kin, as well as servants’ and houseful as household ‘plus other residents attached to but not

within the household, namely boarders, lodgers and any visitors’ (K. Schürer, E.M. Garrett, H. Jaadla and A.

Reid, ‘Household and family structure in England and Wales, 1851 – 1911: continuities and change’, Continuity

and Change, 33 (2018), p. 370). Household in this thesis may correspond therefore with houseful in other

studies. The definition corresponds with the meaning of a ‘family’ as used in the 1851 census as ‘the persons

under one head; who is the occupier of the house, … while the other members of the family are, the wife,

children, servants, relatives, visitors, and persons constantly or accidentally in the house’ (Wall, ‘Economic

collaboration of family members’, p. 83). Ruggles defines a family as any group of related people who reside

together (S. Ruggles, Prolonged Connections: The Rise of the Extended Family in Nineteenth Century England

and America (Madison, 1987), p. 11.

45

population (denominator of SI(A)) to the number of household heads (denominator of SI(H))

gives the average number of adults per household (A/H). The difference between the total

number of people and the total number of adults gives the total number of children in a

population. The ratio of the total number of children to the number of household heads gives

the average number of children per household (CPH).

CSI derived from cohorts of the census population (CSI(C))

This index relates the number of surnames of people identified from a census in a specific age

range (or cohort) to the total number of people in that sample.

An index derived from a young age cohort (children) tends to be low because siblings share

the same surname in each nuclear family; an index derived from an old age cohort tends to be

high because mortality reduces the number of people with shared surnames.

2. Fathers’ Surname Indices (FSIs): Fertile Kinship Families

Fathers’ surname indices are derived from the number of surnames of fathers relative to the

number of fathers in the parish registers over a period of time. The names of all children are

taken from the register, children without a paternal surname are omitted, the surnames are

sorted into alphabetical order, and the number of surnames (ie not the number of individuals

with a particular surname) is measured in relation to the total number of fathers (identified by

forename and surname) (Fathers surname index (FSI) = (Number of surnames of

fathers/Number of fathers) x 100). A rising or relatively high FSI implies a larger number of

fathers’ surnames, and fewer isonymic fertile men in the parish (and vice versa). The data are

calculated in a moving 20-year cycle.

A rising number of fathers in a population over a period of time with a falling FSI implies

progressively more numerous fertile isonymic men, and with a rising FSI a progressive

increase in the number of isolated (or non-kinship) fertile men in the population. A falling

number of fathers over time with a falling FSI, on the other hand, implies that residual fertile

men were drawn from an increasing number or size of isonymic groups, while a rising FSI

with decreasing number of fathers suggests that residual fertile men increasingly came from

isolated families.

The ratio of the number of baptisms to the number of fathers over a period of time gives a

measure of the average number of children fathered by one man. This number bears no

46

relation to the crude birth rate, or the ratio of the number of births to the entire population in a

year.10

Surname indices derived from census data (CSIs) and those derived from baptismal registers

(FSIs) are thus drawn from different population groups but have similar implications. The

census surname index relates the number of surnames of people to the size of the population

at a point in time. The fewer is the number of surnames (and the lower the index), the more

likely it is that people of the same surname form discrete kin-related households or families

in the community. Fathers’ surname indices, on the other hand, relate the number of

surnames of fathers in a community to the number of fathers over a period of time. The

smaller the number of surnames of fathers relative to the number of fathers (and the smaller

the index), the more likely it is that some of these men were related kin. Thus census

surname indices describe the population at a fixed point; the fathers’ surname indices

describe a subgroup of the adult population, namely married fertile men over a period of

time. A low census or fathers’ surname index implies more potential kinship families.

Comparison of census and fathers’ surname indices over a period of time in a parish may give

insights into the behaviour of these families.

3. Memorial Surname Indices (MSIs): Family visibility

A survey of parish church and chapel iconography and the distribution and memorialisation

of gravestones of the villagers provides important evidence on the status of families and

landowners in the community.11 A surname index of the surviving memorials in a graveyard

may be calculated, in which the enumerator is the total number of surnames recorded in the

memorial inscriptions, and the denominator the total number of people memorialised. A high

surname index in this context implies the memorialisation of a large number of isolated

families from the parish, whereas a lower index implies the memorialisation of more

individuals from relatively fewer families. The parishioners saw a visible reminder of large

or kinship families of elevated standing (or core families) in a graveyard with a low surname

index.

10 See M. Drake, ‘Rates and Ratios’, in M. Drake and R. Finnegan (eds), Sources and Methods for Family and

Community Historians: A Handbook (Cambridge, 1994), p. 182.

11 K.D.M. Snell, ‘Gravestones, belonging and local attachment in England’, Past & Present, 179 (2003), p. 97.

47

Surname indices: Assumptions and Flaws in the Methodology

The surname indices used in this thesis are defined as follows: Census surname index (CSI) =

(Number of surnames of enumerated people/Number of people) x 100; Fathers’ surname

index (FSI) = (Number of surnames of fathers/Number of fathers) x 100; Memorial surname

index (MSI) = (Number of surnames recorded on gravestones/Number of people

memorialised) x 100. Subgroups of CSIs are those derived from household heads only

(CSI(H)), adults only (CSI(A)), total population (CSI(T)), and age cohorts (CSI(C)).

These indices provide no more than a number which can be used to compare populations.

They provide no information about specific families.

There are three significant flaws in the methodology, which may become apparent when

changes in the index are viewed alongside reconstituted families.12

1. Isonymic and Kinship Families

Any surname index measures the concentration of people with the same surname, ie isonymic

people. Kinship family members by the definition used in this thesis are isonymic, but not all

isonymic people may be related by kinship.13 Kinship implies a broader concept even than

individuals resident in a household and related individuals resident elsewhere. Kin may be

conceptualised as a ‘wide range of relations, half-relations, and relations-in-law, and also

non-related individuals’, bound together by a ‘series of contractual, occupational and

affective relationships’.14 This caveat applies particularly to people with a common surname,

eg Smith in an English population or Kelly in an Irish population. Notions of the meaning

and significance of kinship bonds have changed radically over historical time.15 This thesis

12 Some implications of different definitions of household and kin are discussed in Schürer, Garrett, Jaadla and

Reid, ‘Household and family structure’, p. 365.

13 Lasker maintained that people with the same surname can be assumed ultimately to be members of the same

lineage, since lines of descent disappear over time so that the remaining individuals are increasingly likely to be

related: Lasker, ‘Using surnames’, p. 5. This view, however, is an oversimplification; see Redmonds, King and

Hey, Surnames.

14 N. Tadmor, ‘Early modern English kinship in the long run: reflections on continuity and change’, Continuity

and Change, 25 (2010), pp. 24 and 31.

15 N. Tadmor, Family and Friends in Eighteenth-Century England: Household, Kinship and Patronage

(Cambridge, 2000); P.P Schweitzer (ed.), Dividends of Kinship: Means and Uses of Social Relatedness

(London, 2000); M. Segalen, Historical Anthropology of the Family, Cambridge, 1986); K.D.M. Snell, Spirits

of Community: English Senses of Belonging and Loss, 1750-2000 (London, 2016), pp. 241-245.

48

assumes that isonymic people are kin in small rural parishes and in regions with a high rate of

endogamy (such as Swaledale), but not necessarily so in urban communities that attract

incomers.16

The definition of kinship in this thesis is numeric and narrow, and excludes many family

members and associates in a community who were regarded as kin. Surname indices notably

exclude affinal kin members who have changed surname by marriage as well as others related

through marriage. Surnames which are phonetically similar or which vary by a single letter

(eg Brannan, Brannon, Brannen and Brenan) in this work are regarded as the same name.

The age at which children became adults was arbitrarily chosen as 16 years in this study,

based upon the approximate age throughout the nineteenth century at which Pooley and

Turnbull estimate the rate of migration of children to begin to change into the adult pattern.17

2. Sample Sizes

The larger the discrepancy between the number of surnames and the number of individuals in

a population, the less is the change in surname index for the addition (or subtraction) of a

given number of surnames. In other words, the addition of one surname to a population of

(say) 100 people produces a smaller change in surname index than if there had been only 50

people in the population. A worked example of this issue appears in this chapter.

3. Selected Populations

The recording of surnames in populations is often incomplete, and this applies uniformly with

memorial inscriptions on gravestones. The number of gravestones standing in churchyards

may be insignificant in comparison with the number of burials. Surnames may be illegible on

16 A high rate of endogamy existed also in parts of Wales, where Rees went so far as to claim that ‘every

household is bound to every other by kinship ties, …’, many neighbours sharing the same surname. Rees quotes

a saying that the neighbourhood was like a dog: ‘If you tread on its tail at one end of the valley, it will bark at

the other end’. In this valley the emotional significance of kinship ‘pervaded everything’ (A.D. Rees, Life in a

Welsh Countryside: A Social Study of Llanfihangel yng Ngwynfa (Cardiff, 1951), p. 75 – 77 & 80). Similarly in

Gosforth, Cumberland, there were families in the twentieth century that had lived in the same place for in excess

of four centuries (W.M. Williams, The Sociology of an English Village: Gosforth (London, 1956), p. 2).

17 C. Pooley and J. Turnbull, Migration and Mobility in Britain since the Eighteenth Century (London, 1998), p.

207. This approximation has been challenged in K. Schürer, ‘Leaving home in England and Wales, 1850 –

1920’, in J. Lee, M. Oris and F. van Poppel (eds), The Road to Independence: Leaving Home in Western and

Eastern Societies, 16th – 20th Centuries (Oxford, 2004), p. 33; and J. Day, ‘Leaving Home and Migrating in

Nineteenth-Century England and Wales: Evidence from the 1881 Census Enumerators’ Books (CEBs)’ (unpub.

PhD. Thesis, University of Cambridge, 2015).

49

surviving gravestones. The parishioners willing and able to erect lasting gravestones are also

self-selected by wealth and social standing in the community. Memorials are therefore class

specific. The deceased memorialised on tablets and tombs within churches are more highly

selected by the parish elite and therefore excluded from analysis, as are names remembered

on war memorials.

However, there exists a growing historiography of graveyard and gravestone studies, which

have arrived at consistent reproducible conclusions from a variety of churches and

approaches.18 The loss of names and gravestones in any churchyard is also a random process

dictated largely by natural deterioration and little active human intervention, and there is no

reason to suppose that legible tombstones erected over a period of time are not representative

of all the parishioners who had stones inscribed. Memorial surname indices may reveal the

effects of migration, the nature of local elites, or the entry of lower status people in the parish.

Baptismal parish registers also are occasionally incomplete. Years for which no registers are

available are excluded from the calculation of Fathers’ Surname Indices, as are years for

which the number of entries is not broadly similar to the numbers in adjacent years.

4. Summary critique of the Surname Index formulated following viva discussion with

examiners

The Surname Index employed in this thesis is a measure of surname diversity within a

population or sample, calculated as (number of surnames in population)/(number of

individuals in population), multiplied by 100 to yield an integer or percentage rather than a

fraction. This measure has been demonstrated and critiqued by James Cheshire in his 2011

PhD thesis, and whilst it can be effective (though not infallible), for example in

demonstrating increased surname diversity in cities, which tend to be migration sinks, it can

be very hard to interpret in other contexts. The reasons for this limitation of the surname

index are as follows:

18 Snell, ‘Gravestones’, Figures 1 - 3; C. Rawding, ‘The iconography of churches: a case study of landownership

and power in nineteenth-century Lincolnshire’, Journal of Historical Geography, 16 (1990), p. 157; K.D.M.

Snell, Parish and Belonging: Community, Identity and Welfare in England and Wales 1700 – 1950 (Cambridge,

2006), pp. 454 – 495; S. Tarlow, Bereavement and Commemoration: An Archaeology of Mortality (Oxford,

1999); H. Lees, English Churchyard Memorials (Stroud, 2000); H. Mytum, Recording and Analysing

Graveyards (York, 2000); K.D.M. Snell and R. Jones, ‘Churchyard memorials: ‘Dispensing with God

gradually’: Rustication, decline of the Gothic and the emergence of Art Deco in the British Isles’, Rural History,

29 (2018), p. 45.

50

1) Because the number of repetitions of each surname is not preserved in the index, the index

gives no insight into family structure and kinship. For example, a population of 100 people

with a surname index of 50 could comprise 50 different surnames each held by 2 people, or

51 people with one surname and 49 people with unique surnames; the index itself does not

tell us which of these or of any other possibilities is actually the case. Thus, in general, we

cannot infer that two populations with the same surname index have the same kinship

structure. 2) Because individual surnames are not preserved in the index, the index is

inappropriate for tracking change or stability through time in population structure. From

census decade to decade, for example, new surnames might enter the population, old

surnames leave, and – as an extreme hypothetical example – the index itself will not tell us

even if all the surnames observed in one decade have been replaced by new ones in the next.

3) The surname index is very sensitive to population and sample size, and this has probably

played an important role in shaping the results of the analyses conducted.

Because of these limitations, whilst the index may sometimes produce results that appear

consistent with inference from conventional approaches, it can never be relied upon to do so.

For that reason, inference from the statistic itself must be discounted in the following

passages of the thesis:

Chapter 2 Surname Indices: Concept and Application pp. 39-70; p.56, Fig. 8, p. 57, Fig. 9, p.

58, Fig. 10, p. 60, Figs. 11, 12, p. 63, Fig. 13.

Chapter 3 York pp. 71-107; Holgate p. 73, Figs. 19, 20, p. 74, Figs. 21, 22; Walmgate p. 93,

Figs. 31, 32, p. 94, Figs. 33, 34, p. 95, Fig. 35.

Chapter 4 Swaledale pp. 108-144; p. 109, Fig. 44, p. 111, Figs. 45, 46, p. 112, Figs. 47, 48, p.

116, Fig. 54, p. 117, Figs. 55, 56, p. 118, Fig. 57, p. 142, Figs. 76,77, p. 143, Fig. 78.

Chapter 7 Rural and Urban Comparisons pp. 228-241; p. 229, Figs 86, 87.

Surname Indices: The effects of parliamentary enclosure of the fields on kinship

families during the nineteenth century

This chapter turns now to an example of how surname indices can be exploited to provide

insights on how kinship families may have been affected by an historical event in their

community, in this example enclosure of the village fields. The enclosure movement had a

profound influence on rural society in many ways, including family survival. Of fundamental

51

importance to the social structure of English rural parishes were familial kinship links.

Villagers were in perpetual exchange with their neighbouring parishes, but some families

lived in the same place for generations, even for centuries. Laslett and Harrison found in

their seminal study of seventeeth-century Clayworth and Cogenhoe that some households

endured, albeit with revised membership but working the same land and inhabiting the same

farm. Such families gave their community a sense of permanence and stability.19

1. Enclosure of the fields: Landholding patterns in two parishes

The two parishes chosen for a comparison of family dynamics by surname indices in this

section are Bolton Percy and Poppleton, separated by just a few miles and both lying in the

area of land between York and Tadcaster known by the name of the Ainsty of York. They

both hold some nucleated townships or villages once surrounded by large open communal

fields divided into strips.20 Both parishes were rural communities in former times, and both

largely remain so today, although Poppleton parish has merged to a large extent with the

adjacent city of York.

Bolton Percy parish included until 1875 a cluster of four townships, namely Bolton Percy,

Appleton Roebuck, Colton and Steeton.21 The Imperial Gazetteer of 1872-4 records the land

at Bolton Percy township at 2170 acres and the land at Appleton Roebuck township as 2780

acres. This source records also that the property in Bolton Percy parish was divided among a

few owners, indicating a closed parish. The townships of Steeton and Colton enclosed their

lands before 1797, when parliamentary enclosure of the open fields in Bolton Percy and

Appleton was begun.22 The enclosure award was sealed and completed in 1804. The

19 M. Strathern, Kinship at the core: An Anthropology of Elmdon a Village in North-west Essex in the Nineteen-

sixties, (Cambridge, 2009), pp. 1-34; D. Hey, The Grass Roots of English History: Local Societies in England

before the Industrial Revolution (London, 2016), p. 183; P. Laslett, ‘Clayworth and Cogenhoe’, in Family Life

and Illicit Love in Earlier Generations (Cambridge, 1977); P. Laslett, The World We Have Lost further explored

(London 1965, 1994 reprint), p. 76.

The assumption is made in this section that isonymic people in the villages were related by birth or marriage.

20 Hey, The Grass Roots of English History, pp. 65-76.

21 M. Harrison, Four Ainsty Townships: The History of Bolton Percy, Appleton Roebuck, Colton and Steeton

1066-1875 (York, 2000). The parish church of All Saints at Bolton Percy was consecrated in 1424; All Saints

church in Appleton Roebuck was built in 1868.

22 J.M. Wilson (ed.), Imperial Gazetteer of England and Wales (London,1870 - 1872); Harrison, Four Ainsty

Townships, p. 56. The enclosure award map for Bolton Percy hangs in All Saints Church, Bolton Percy. The

52

principal landowners at the time were Sir William Milner, the lord of the manors of Appleton

and Bolton, Sir Thomas Turner Slingsby, lord of the manor of Woolas in Appleton, and

Frances Cotton who had inherited lands in Appleton. The rector was allocated an allotment

in return for his open fields and ings, one fifth of the remainder of the open fields as

compensation for tithes due, and an annual tithe rent from the rest of the lands valued outside

the open fields. Exchanges of land also took place between Sir William Milner and the

rector, and the rector's allocation at enclosure was a large compact acreage. The township of

Bolton Percy was dominated by the church rather than the squire. The rector was provided

with a very rich living, including a substantial rectory, gatehouse and tithe barn. The absence

of a resident lord of the manor generated ecclesiastical dominance, and consecutive rectors

imposed heavy burdens on the parish in order to enhance the status of themselves and their

church (Figure 5).23 Although the parish of Bolton Percy was dominated by the Anglican

Church, Nonconformism also took root. Methodism grew following enclosure and its

membership increased with population.24 Following parliamentary enclosure of Appleton,

the Milner family of Nun Appleton and large farmers in the township required an expanded

labour force, and the population there outstripped the township of Bolton Percy.

enclosure awards for Bolton Percy and Poppleton are held at the Borthwick Institute for Historical Research,

University of York: PR. BP100 & PR. Pop 1.

23 E. Bogg, Lower Wharfeland: The Old City of York and the Ainsty, the Region of Historic Memories (York,

1904), p. 12.

24 Harrison, Four Ainsty Townships, pp. 52 – 58, 64 – 65 & 121 – 129.

53

Figure 5. Painting of All Saints Church, Bolton Percy

The two townships of Poppleton also comprise mixed but largely arable land considerably

smaller in acreage than the parish of Bolton Percy. Nether Poppleton stands on the River

Ouse, and comprised 1150 acres listed in the Imperial Gazetteer of 1872-4. Upper Poppleton

comprised at that time 1340 acres. The lord of the manor of Poppleton, Richard Wilson at

the time of enclosure, was not a native of Poppleton and lived in a manor house near

Wetherby.25 The Enclosure Act was passed in 1769 in Poppleton, and the land divided six

years later. The living of both townships was a curacy. Nether Poppleton tithes were

abolished by the enclosure award, and as compensation the vicar of Nether Poppleton

received land there. The Anglican chapel at Upper Poppleton in 1857 was united with the

vicarage at St Mary Bishophill Junior in neighbouring York, but in 1891 was replaced by All

Saints Church consolidated with the vicarage of St Everilda’s Church in Nether Poppleton.26

The populations of Bolton Percy and Poppleton townships across the censuses of the

nineteenth century are shown in Figure 6.

25 P. Bebb, Georgian Poppleton (1714-1830) (York, 1994), pp. 6-12.

26 Enclosure awards and Parish records for Poppleton held at the Borthwick Institute for Historical Research,

University of York: PR. Pop 1. The parish church is All Saints Church, Upper Poppleton.

54

Figure 6. Total Population of Bolton Percy and Poppleton townships 1841 to 1901

All four townships in Bolton Percy and Poppleton showed a similar population trend in the

years up to and including the third quarter of the nineteenth century, namely a period of

growth followed by decline into an agricultural depression. Three of the four townships

(Bolton Percy, Appleton Roebuck and Upper Poppleton) then followed the same pattern in

population figures in the last quarter of the century, namely a slump during agricultural

depression and an upturn in the last decade of the century. The population in Nether

Poppleton bucked the trend of its neighbouring township, however, where there was by

contrast a growth in the population during the years of more widespread depression followed

by a downturn towards the turn of the century. The most likely explanation of this boom in

Nether Poppleton in the face of agricultural depression would seem to be a rural specialism

which could flourish despite hard times in farming generally. Market gardening may have

provided this opportunity.

The enclosure of the open fields of Poppleton took place relatively early in the enclosure

movement in 1775, and a quarter of a century or so later in the parish of Bolton Percy. Both

were ‘closed’ communities. The distribution of plot sizes in these two parishes was the same

in one important respect, namely that more than half the land in each was owned by the

gentry, Sir William Mordaunt Milner, Thomas Turner Slingsby and Frances Cotton in Bolton

Percy (85% of the land), and in Poppleton the Lord of the Manor Richard Wilson and

William Thompson of York (53% of the land). A significant difference exists, however,

55

between the enclosures of the two parishes for landed owners below the level of gentry and

clergy, on account of the fact that more landowners were allocated enclosures in Poppleton

than in Bolton Percy in spite of the smaller total acreage available (Figure 7). Because the

gentry and clergy were allocated such a large acreage in the enclosure of Bolton Percy

(indeed, more land than the total acreage of the parish of Poppleton), the larger population of

landed villagers in Poppleton still tended to receive after enclosure a greater allocation of

land than the villagers in Bolton Percy. Landed villagers in Bolton Percy, though fewer in

number, received less land. The map of Bolton Percy, once the enclosure award had been

implemented, showed less residual land occupied by fewer landowners with yet smaller

individual plots than their neighbours in Poppleton. The rector of Bolton Percy also fared

considerably better (although many years later) in the stakes for land than his counterpart the

curate of Nether Poppleton, receiving four times his acreage of land. It would appear from

this look at the figures that enclosure had favoured the gentry and clergy in Bolton Percy, and

the smaller landowner in Poppleton.

Figure 7. Land acreages awarded at enclosure of Bolton Percy and Poppleton parishes

2. Surname Indices of Populations in Bolton Percy and Poppleton

Census Surname Indices: Kinship and Isolated Families

The decennial censuses of 1841 to 1891 for the townships of Bolton Percy and Appleton

Roebuck in the parish of Bolton Percy and the townships of Nether and Upper Poppleton in

56

the parish of Poppleton were retrieved and the surnames of all individuals in the townships

were transcribed. Surname indices for each parish and township were plotted over time.

A detailed look at the trends in surname indices viewed against adult population size in these

two parishes illuminates clear differences (Figure 8).27 The adult population in both parishes

fell after 1850 for a period of time, and then grew. The decline lasted for 20 years longer in

Bolton Percy than in Poppleton. Throughout this turbulent period, the surname index fell in

four of the six decades and kinship families grew in Poppleton; the surname index rose in

five of these decades and isolated families had more success in Bolton Percy.

Figure 8. Adult population size and census surname indices of Bolton Percy and Poppleton

parishes

27 The smallest number of surnames in a parish census population in this study was 122, and the largest was 213.

The smallest parish adult census population was 329, and the largest was 553. The arrival of 2 new isolated

families (say of 8 people with 4 adults) in the smaller population would raise the index by 0.1 (from (122/329) x

100 =37.1 to (124/333) x 100 = 37.2). The arrival of 2 new kinship families (say of 12 people with 4 adults) in

the larger population would raise the index by 0.1 (from (213/553) x 100 = 38.5 to (215/557) x 100 = 38.6). The

differences in surname indices of the sizes seen in Bolton Percy and Poppleton therefore imply significant

differences between and within the two parishes in numbers of surnames and/or population.

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Surn

ame

Index

Adult

Po

pula

tio

n BP Parish

Population

Pn Parish

Population

BP Parish CSI

Pn Parish CSI

57

Figure 9. Adult population size and census surname indices of Bolton Percy and Appleton

Roebuck townships

The plot of adult population size in both townships in Bolton Percy parish shows a decade of

growth up until 1851 (Figure 9). During this period of growth in Bolton Percy township, the

surname index fell, suggesting expansion in kinship family membership over this period.

The opposite effect in the surname index is seen in Appleton Roebuck township over this

same period, suggesting that isolated families contributed disproportionately to the rise in

adult population size. The adult population size in Bolton Percy township over the second

half of the nineteenth century stagnated, as did its kinship families. The adult population in

Appleton Roebuck, on the other hand, initially fell after mid-century, and then stabilised

towards the end of the nineteenth century. The surname index in Appleton Roebuck rose

steadily over this half century, suggesting a disproportionate loss of kinship family members

from the adult population pool.

58

Figure 10. Adult population size and census surname indices of Nether and Upper Poppleton

townships

The adult population size in the two townships of Nether and Upper Poppleton varied

markedly in the second half of the nineteenth century. Both rose then fell up until the census

of 1871, but thereafter the two township populations grew or declined in opposing patterns

(Figure 10). The surname indices in these two townships show opposite patterns also in the

quarter-century before 1871. The surname index in Nether Poppleton varied with the adult

population size over this quarter, suggesting that as the population size rose initially the

concentration of kinship families was diluted accordingly, only to concentrate as the adult

population then fell. The reverse pattern in surname indices occurred in Upper Poppleton,

varying inversely with changes in the adult population size. With the initial rise in adult

population, kinship families grew, and then these families decreased in size or number as the

adult population fell. Thus kinship families contributed to the changes in adult population

size in Upper Poppleton, but isolated families effected changes in the adult population in

Nether Poppleton.

The year 1871 was a turning point in demography in the parish of Poppleton. In Nether

Poppleton thereafter, the adult population rose then fell, whilst the surname index fell then

rose, only to fall again in the last decade of the century. Kinship families waxed and waned

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

Surn

ame

Index

Ad

ult

Po

pu

lati

on

Year

NP AdultPopulation

UP AdultPopulation

NP CSI

UP CSI

59

in number, concentrating during times of depopulation and even in periods of growth of the

village. The converse occurred in Upper Poppleton. The adult population fell then grew, as

did the surname index. It appears that kinship families stayed during a period of village

depopulation, but were diluted by an influx of isolated families on village resurgence.

In summary, the demographic changes in adult population size have varying causes and

effects in the two parishes in the latter decades of the nineteenth century. After a decade of

growth of kinship families in the township of Bolton Percy after 1841, the trajectory of these

families in the parish was relentlessly downwards until the end of the century. Their number

declined even in relation to a steady decline in the population of the parish and in spite of an

upswing in population size in the final decade of our period. Kinship families were more

volatile in Poppleton townships. They were possibly static in number in Nether Poppleton

before 1871, diluting as population grew and concentrating as it fell. Upper Poppleton

housed a more labile kinship family membership. Here they concentrated even as the

population grew, then diluted even as the population declined. In the years of agricultural

depression after 1871, kinship families had their heyday in the Poppleton townships. They

grew in Nether Poppleton ahead of the population increase and in Upper Poppleton in spite of

the population fall. These families again appear static in number towards the end of the

century in Poppleton, diluting in Upper Poppleton as its population expanded, and

concentrating in Nether Poppleton’s dwindling size.

Fathers’ Surname Indices: Fertile Kinship Families

Fathers’ surname indices, expressed as the ratio of the number of surnames of fathers to the

number of fathers, measures a subset of a community, ie fertile men that fathered children.

Fathers’ and census surname indices plotted over the same timespan in a parish show how

fathers compared against the population as a whole. Furthermore, plots of these two indices

from the year of enclosure of the fields, rather than against calendar year, show how this

event may have influenced kinship families over many decades and in different parishes.

60

Figure 11. Census and fathers’ surname indices of Bolton Percy and Appleton Roebuck

townships (markers in the CSI plots indicate 1841 to 1891 censuses)

Figure 12. Census and fathers’ surname indices of Nether and Upper Poppleton townships

(markers in the CSI plots indicate 1841 to 1891 censuses)

61

The baptismal record begins in the Bolton Percy townships 15 years before enclosure, and the

1841 census was recorded 37 years after it (Figure 11).28 The two townships of Poppleton

parish were enclosed 14 and 16 years before the baptismal record begins, and 66 years before

the 1841 census was taken (Figure 12). In the two townships of Bolton Percy and Appleton

Roebuck, kinship families bearing children flourished in the years before enclosure, but this

trend came to a halt within a decade of the Act. Thereafter, and for at least a further 70 years

in both townships, these kinship families declined in number and/or size. The same pattern

of dwindling kinship families is seen from the censuses of Appleton Roebuck beginning 40

years or so after enclosure. Kinship families as a whole had a little more success in Bolton

Percy township many decades after enclosure.

This pattern was repeated in Nether Poppleton. Fertile kinship families tended to proliferate

for 40 years after enclosure, but thereafter they went into decline in size and/or number for

the next six decades. As in Bolton Percy township, however, fertile and other kinship

families together continued to grow to an extent over this later period. Upper Poppleton

township, on the other hand, witnessed the consolidation of all kinship families, as measured

from the baptismal registers and censuses, from the time of enclosure or thereabouts and for

at least another century.

The censuses show that the fortunes of kinship families varied in the early decades after

1840. In the later decades of the nineteenth century, these families flourished in Poppleton,

but floundered somewhat in Bolton Percy or left the parish as the population stagnated. The

creation of similar open fields in these two parishes may relate more to their similar soil type

than to any population pressures.29 The linkage of the fathers’ surname indices to the year of

enclosure, however, and the similarity in patterns between two parishes in its immediate

28 Parish Registers of Bolton Percy and Poppleton are held at the Borthwick Institute: MF 644, 629, 753 & 754.

The baptismal records began in Bolton Percy and Appleton Roebuck townships in 1780, in Nether Poppleton

township in 1782, and in Upper Poppleton township in 1829. Entries for Poppleton in the registers of St Mary

Bishophill Junior, York, are included with Upper Poppleton baptisms from 1776 to 1812. There is consequently

a gap in the registration between 1813 and 1828. FSIs are calculated from a moving 20 year cycle, and the mid-

point of each cycle is plotted against year after enclosure. The first mid-point of FSIs of the Bolton Percy

townships, 1789, is plotted at 15 years before enclosure in 1804; the first mid-point of Nether Poppleton

township, 1791, is plotted at 16 years after enclosure in 1775; and the first mid-point of Upper Poppleton

township, 1789, is plotted at 14 years after enclosure in 1775. The gap in the registers of Upper Poppleton

causes a gap in the mid-points of FSIs between 1803 and 1837.

29 T. Williamson, Shaping Medieval Landscapes: Settlement, Society, Environment (Bollington, 2003), pp. 1-27.

62

aftermath, suggest that it was enclosure of the fields that influenced the trajectory of kinship

families. Enclosure possibly applied the brakes to kinship family consolidation in Bolton

Percy parish within a generation and in Nether Poppleton township after a few generations,

and set them into decline over many decades. It applied no such check on kinship families in

Upper Poppleton, where they continued to proliferate for at least another century. The

relative success of these families in Poppleton may have been generated by enclosure of the

fields, which had favoured the small landowner. Their relative failure in Bolton Percy may

have had its origins in the same movement, which in their case had favoured the gentry and

clergy.

Memorial Surname Indices: Family visibility

Local information regarding personal standing of families in rural parishes may be gathered

from the distribution of graves in church burial grounds.30 The surname indices of the

surviving memorials in the graveyards of the four parish churches of Bolton Percy and

Poppleton parishes are shown in Figure 13.31

30 Rawding, ‘The iconography of churches’, pp. 157-176.

31 Memorial transcriptions were transcribed by members of the City of York and District Family History

Society: CDs of YDFHS Monumental Inscriptions of Bolton Percy All Saints Church 2009 and Appleton

Roebuck All Saints 2008, and Microfiches of YDFHS Memorial Inscriptions of St Everilda’s Nether Poppleton

and All Saints Upper Poppleton.

The surname indices are derived from memorials of individuals who died between 1800 and 1900. The number

of people memorialised in the parishes of Bolton Percy and Poppleton is the sum of the number of people

memorialised in the churchyards in each of the two townships in each parish.

63

Figure 13. Surname indices from surviving nineteenth-century memorials in the churchyards

of Bolton Percy and Poppleton townships

The memorials show a clear inverse correlation between the surname indices and the number

of people memorialised between 1800 and 1900. The larger the churchyard, the lower is the

surname index and the greater is the density of kinship family members remembered there.

Kinship family members were memorialised in greater density in Poppleton than in Bolton

Percy parishes although the total population of Bolton Percy parish consistently outnumbered

Poppleton parish between 1841 and 1901 (see Figure 6), and in greater density in the larger

churchyard in each parish. The differences in the concentrations of surnames on the

tombstones mirrors the situation derived from the censuses and baptisms of the two parishes

in the second half of the nineteenth century. Put another way, kinship families that had

tended to proliferate or decline in the parish following enclosure memorialised their kinsmen

after death in a similar concentration in the churchyards (Figure 14).

64

Figure 14. The Churchyard of St Everilda’s, Nether Poppleton

3. Conclusions: Enclosure and kinship families

The surname indices in this chapter have been derived from two rural parishes adjacent to

York. Three sections of the community of the nineteenth century in each parish have been

analysed, namely the adults enumerated in the decennial censuses, fertile men able to father

children listed in the parish baptismal registers, and individuals memorialised on surviving

gravestones in the churchyards. An attempt has been made to relate changes in the indices

over time to enclosure of the open fields in the parishes.

Enclosure clearly favoured the gentry and clergy in Bolton Percy, and the smaller landowner

in Poppleton. Using this example of the novel methodology of surname index analysis to

follow kinship families, it is equally clear that kinship families flourished in number in

Poppleton and dwindled in Bolton Percy in the decades after enclosure. The effects of

enclosure upon parish society and families in England remain controversial to this day.32 The

process in many cases probably reinforced rather than began an old tendency towards larger

32 K.D.M. Snell, Annals of the Labouring Poor: Social Change and Agrarian England, 1660 – 1900

(Cambridge, 1985), p. 144; L. Shaw-Taylor, ‘Labourers, cows, common rights and Parliamentary enclosure: the

evidence of contemporary comment c. 1760-1810’, Past and Present, 171(2001), pp. 95-126. See also R.C.

Allen, Enclosure and the Yeoman: The Agricultural Development of the South Midlands 1450 – 1850 (Oxford,

1992); and N. Verdon, Rural Women Workers in Nineteenth Century England (Woodbridge, 2002).

65

farms and more distinct social divisions. The engrossing of farms had an adverse effect on

many small tenants. Some small owners, losing out on pasturage on the commons and

saddled with the expenses of fencing small acreages, were left with a plot too small to be

viable and decided to sell out. Enclosure could prove to be particularly unfavourable to the

small farmer when it entailed a drastic change in land use.33 The division of land could

concentrate ownership into the hands of a few men.34 On the other hand, its effects may have

been minimal when the changes merely augmented or intensified a local specialisation which

had been determined by other factors. Dairy farming was essentially the province of the

small family farmer, whose income could be supplemented by other earnings. Market

gardening of fruit and vegetables to service the growing towns of the eighteenth and

nineteenth centuries was particularly suited to small acreages.35 This form of agriculture

flourished near York, notably in Poppleton.

Employment on the land was disturbed by enclosure, and Snell suggests that the decade after

the award witnessed a propulsion into a new work regime rather than a more gradual

acclimatisation. Some have argued that there was a lower demand for labour in some

enclosed villages. The consensus now is that the enclosure movement often boosted rural

population growth, albeit within the terms of a more fully proletarianised rural labour force.

The movement did not always adversely affect the small landowner and tenant farmer, who

grew in number in many regions during the period. However, small owner occupiers fell to a

low ebb towards the end of the nineteenth century. Some survivors had become substantial

commercial farmers, some had found their main occupation outside agriculture, and some had

become absorbed into the declining number of agricultural labourers.36

Enclosure could affect family structure. It probably removed some restraints on marriage,

which had hitherto been linked to couples’ savings in an open-field context. Snell and

Wrigley and Schofield attribute a falling marriage age, and rising fertility in some regions in

33 G.E. Mingay, Enclosure and the Small Farmer in the Age of the Industrial Revolution (London, 1968), pp.

20-24.

34 T. Williamson and L. Bellamy, Property and Landscape: A Social History of Land Ownership and the

English Countryside (London, 1987), p. 115.

35 Mingay, Enclosure and the Small Farmer, pp. 13-19; A. Howkins, Reshaping Rural England: a Social

History, 1850-1925 (London, 1991), p. 40.

36 Snell, Annals of the Labouring Poor, pp. 150, 219 & 139; Mingay, Enclosure and the Small Farmer, p. 9.

66

the period after enclosure, to changes in employment and wages, including changing real

wages, pressure on women to marry early as insurance against unemployment, and decline of

service and apprenticeship and disincentive to save.37 One social effect of enclosure could

therefore be a rising birth rate. Many factors affected the mobility of families. One was the

passing down from father to son of legal settlement and the right to parish relief, perhaps

encouraging a persistence in the village of successive generations of the family. Tied

cottages could inhibit mobility. The age at which young men left the family home also rose,

notably with the decline of service, encouraging closer contact between the generations.

Rising life expectancy promoted the villagers’ perception of a stable immobile core of the

community, fostered also by the continuity from generation to generation of some core

village families.38

The effects of enclosure upon landholding patterns, family structure and stability of

occupational kinship groups are also debated. Further changes in kinship families following

the period of enclosure of the two chosen parishes can be explored in this study. The

surnames of all household heads of the two parishes were retrieved from the censuses

between 1841 and 1901. All those household heads who shared a surname with at least one

other head of household in the same parish were counted, and subdivided into farmers,

market gardeners (in Poppleton) and agricultural labourers. The total acreage of land farmed

by these kinship family farmers and as recorded in the censuses was also tabulated. The total

number of these family heads employed on the land is shown in Figure 15, and the total

acreages of land farmed by kinship families in their own parishes are shown in Figure 16.

37 Snell, Annals of the Labouring Poor, p. 210; E.A. Wrigley and R.S. Schofield, The Population History of

England 1541 – 1871. A Reconstruction (Cambridge, 1989), p. xxii.

38 Snell, Annals of the Labouring Poor, pp. 334 – 339 & 364. The influences of extended families and

inheritance are discussed further in B. Reay, Microhistories: Demography, Society and Culture in Rural

England, 1800-1930 (Cambridge, 1996), p. 161; Mingay, Enclosure and the Small Farmer, p. 27; and R. Wall,

‘Real property, marriage and children: the evidence from four pre-industrial communities’, in R.M. Smith (ed.),

Land, Kinship and Life-Cycle (Cambridge, 2002), p. 443.

67

Figure 15. Kinship family heads employed on the land of Bolton Percy and Poppleton

parishes

Figure 16. Total acreages farmed by kinship families in Bolton Percy and Poppleton parishes

Harrison tells us that the agricultural labour force increased in size after the enclosure of

Bolton Percy parish, when new houses and new outlying farms were built.39 The number of

39 Harrison, Four Ainsty Townships, pp. 67 and 156.

68

kinship family heads employed on the land of Bolton Percy fell markedly over the second

half of the nineteenth century, but the number of such family heads rose to a maximum in

1881 in Poppleton. The numbers of these men fell in tandem in both parishes in the final

decade of the century. The acreage of land held by kinship families in Bolton Percy fell

steeply between 1851 and 1881. This acreage held in Poppleton fell at the same rate until

1871, after which it recovered somewhat. Rural depopulation therefore affected landed

kinship families in the second half of the nineteenth century in both parishes, but the effect

was dampened somewhat in the parish in which enclosure had favoured the small landowner.

The methodology of surname index analysis provides no more than an aggregate measure of

kinship relationships. The indices derived from three sectors of the population in each of

these parishes indicate similar patterns and trends. They show in two adjacent rural parishes

over most of our study period and in relation to their sizes, that there were fewer kinship

families in Bolton Percy than in Poppleton to inhabit their houses, to father their children, and

to remember their dead. Individual local kinship family behaviour throws further light on

these changes. Only three kinship families in Bolton Percy, namely Backhouse, Kilby and

Wheatley, and only three kinship families in Poppleton, namely Hawkin, Kirk and

Richardson, were headed entirely by farmers in 1841. There were nine such farmers in each

parish. Most of the kinship family farmers present at the 1841 census in Bolton Percy had

children, but conversely most of the kinship family farmers in Poppleton at that time did not

have children. However, some children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of all of the

fertile Poppleton kinship farmers of 1841 stayed in the village into adult life. The children of

a couple of the fertile kinship farmers in Bolton Percy parish did not stay in the village

beyond their childhood years. Most of the farming families of 1841 in Poppleton passed

through a period of time with resident kin, but few of the Bolton Percy farming families did

so. Farming the land remained within three of the four family lines of 1841 that bore children

in Poppleton for periods of up to an excess of 60 years. The acreage they worked in general

increased over the generations, with the notable exception of one branch of the Richardson

family that diversified into market gardening. On the other hand, the sons of only two of the

seven kinship fathers of 1841 succeeded on the family farm in Bolton Percy, and the land

they worked never exceeded 100 acres. Farming, therefore, remained buoyant in the kinship

family lines in Poppleton, but declined in the descendants of Bolton Percy kinship families.

The grades given to farm management in these villages in the National Farm Survey of the

69

following century are illuminating.40 The surveyor's report gave his highest management

grade to nearly all the land in Poppleton. Many acres had been given over to market

gardening, including orchards and soft fruit production. The picture in Bolton Percy, by

contrast, was unhealthy. The surveyor gave most land a poor management grade, and a list of

personal failings in the farmers. Most telling perhaps is the management of the largest

acreage of land in the parish, namely by the lord of the manor, who ‘... [did] not properly

understand arable farming ...’ (Figure 17).

Figure 17. A deserted windmill in the parish fields of Bolton Percy

Families in nineteenth-century England were swayed by a multitude of social conventions

and beliefs as well as economic factors. Their fates were determined in large part by where

they were born, and the lives of the villagers in this study of two lowland fertile arable

parishes differed in many ways from those in other regions with diverse farming patterns in

pre-industrial England. Whether family fortunes in Bolton Percy and Poppleton were

predetermined simply by the effects of enclosure is of course unlikely. The trajectories of

40 B. Short, C. Watkins, W. Foot and P. Kinsman, The National Farm Survey, 1941-1943: State Surveillance

and the Countryside in England and Wales in the Second World War (Wallingford Oxon, 1999). National

Archives National Farm Survey 1941: Bolton Percy MAF32/1117/116; Appleton Roebuck MAF32/1112/107;

Upper Poppleton MAF32/1166/150; Nether Poppleton MAF32/1149/137.

70

some reconstituted kinship families in these two parishes, however, are in line with the trends

seen in the surname indices, and it is likely that they were influenced by parliamentary

enclosure. It comes as no surprise that the descendants of farmers should be affected by

enclosure of their open communal fields, but this example of surname index methodology

shows also that kinship families may have been affected for generations in different ways

from their more isolated neighbours.

*

This chapter, in summary, has shown how a profound historical event that reverberated for

centuries, enclosure of the common fields, could influence rural kinship families in different

ways depending upon where they lived and in different ways from other villagers. Surname

indices applied to several sectors of the same populations are seen to be powerful analytical

tools for demonstrating varied responses in local communities.

The remainder of this thesis explores how these indices can dissect out different reactions in

some other rural and urban families forced to migrate. Chapter 3 applies the concept of

surname indices to the occupants of some streets in nineteenth-century York.

71

Chapter 3

Surname Indices and Migration: Kinship Families of York

This thesis now turns attention to individual households involved in the migration of railway

workers and Irish famine victims into the Holgate and Walmgate areas of York. Chapter 2

explored the concept and application of surname indices to populations, and explained how

these indices might shed light on the demographic changes following an historical event such

as enclosure of the fields. This chapter plots the surname indices drawn from the six streets

of urban York and describes the kinship families in these communities. The migration

pathways of these families into York are explored further in Chapters 6 and 7.

The data for all the indices in the remainder of this thesis collected from the decennial

censuses and parish baptismal registers are presented in Appendices 1, 2 and 3.

Holgate

The building of streets in the suburb of Holgate in York accelerated after the arrival of the

railway in 1839, and some were occupied almost entirely by railway families. In this chapter

kinship families, composed of households in the neighbourhood headed by people of the

same surname and related by birth or marriage, are tracked in four of these streets in the

vicinity of York railway station. Several of these kinship families from different sectors of

the railway workforce are selected, and the forces which pushed and pulled these family

trajectories in different directions are described. An attempt is made also to place these

families in the context of the wider railway community.

The map below (Figure 18) shows the Holgate district of York in the late nineteenth century

after the building of railway housing had been completed. The area including Railway

Terrace, St Paul’s Terrace, St Paul’s Square, and Holgate Road is circled, and Holgate Road,

the main thoroughfare from Leeds and the Ainsty of York, is delineated by asterisks.

Blossom Street enters the city through the City Wall (black). The ‘old’ railway station lies

within the walls, and the ‘new’ station outside the walls. The two terraces and St Paul’s

Square form dense housing abutting the approach railway lines, marshalling yards and works

and sheds, while Holgate Road has more open housing planning.

72

Figure 18. Holgate area of York (map published in 1893; Ordnance Survey, 1:1056 edition)

Surname Indices of Holgate

Changes in surname indices or surname density over the second half of the nineteenth century

in the four streets of Holgate are shown below. There are interesting differences on the one

hand between St Paul’s Square and the other three streets in the changes in surname indices,

and on the other hand between Holgate Road and the other three streets in household

structures.

The surname indices for the four streets of the Holgate district have been calculated from the

nineteenth-century censuses from the year in which the residents were first enumerated.

Figures 19 to 22 show the changes in the number of households and in surname indices in

Holgate Road, St Paul’s Terrace, Railway Terrace and St Paul’s Square until the end of the

century.

73

Figure 19. Surname index derived from census household heads and number of household

heads in Holgate Road


heads in St Paul’s Terrace

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

Num

ber

of

House

hold

Hea

ds

Surn

am

e In

dex

Year

CSI(H)

Household Heads

74


heads in Railway Terrace


heads in St Paul’s Square

The surname indices plotted from the household heads show similar trends in three of these

streets, namely Holgate Road, St Paul’s Terrace and Railway Terrace, but a reversal of this

pattern in St Paul’s Square. In the 20 years after 1841 the surname index of Holgate Road

heads fluctuated, but thereafter until 1891 the index fell as household heads with shared

surnames tended to grow in number in relation to heads with a unique surname in the street.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

Nu

mb

er o

f H

ou

sehold

Hea

ds

Su

rnam

e In

dex

Year

CSI(H)

Household Heads

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

Num

ber

of

House

hold

Hea

ds

Surn

am

e In

dex

Year

CSI(H)

Household Heads

75

The surname indices in St Paul’s Terrace and Railway Terrace in 1871, when the streets were

under construction, were 100, that is the surnames of all the household heads were different.

This was a new fledgling community in 1871, no kinship heads having been attracted to the

terraces. After this date the indices fell as heads with shared surnames concentrated in the

houses of these two streets over the first 20 years of their existence until 1891. The final ten

years of the nineteenth century witnessed a reversal of this trend in each of these three streets

when indices rose to an extent as heads with shared surnames tended to decline. The

opposite pattern is seen in the indices in St Paul’s Square. The surname index derived from

the household heads in the square rose until 1891, and then fell in the last decade of the

century. Isolated families tended to dominate in the square throughout the century, and in

1891 there were no resident kinship household heads at all.

The indices from these four streets in the Holgate district suggest, in short, that kinship

families may have been attracted over most of the period to the two terraces of working-class

railway employees and to Holgate Road, but not to the more affluent quarter of St Paul’s

Square. The rentals of working-class housing were more attractive to kinship families than

the cost for middle-class families, even though these terraced houses were more expensive

than other forms of housing in the city.1 Home ownership meant the realization of that

independent status coveted by working people.2 Furthermore, just as there was variability in

surname densities in the streets of this neighbourhood, so there was some difference in

household composition. The average size of households, and of the number of adults and

children in each household, have been calculated in this section from the data in the census

surname indices. Figures 23 and 24 show the changes in household composition in the four

streets over the second half of the century, namely in the overall size of the households and

the number of children.3

1 A. August, The British Working Class, 1832 – 1940 (Harlow, 2007), pp. 17 – 21; S. Meacham, A Life Apart:

The English Working Class 1890-1914 (London, 1977), 38. Many properties in Holgate Road between 1876

and 1900 were occupied by their owner. Some were rented from private landlords, and few were owned by the

North Eastern Railway. The rate books for St Paul’s Terrace, Railway Terrace and St Paul’s Square are not

present with other rate books for Holgate (York Explore, Rate Books: Holgate 1876-1900, Ref no. PLU/9/1/16).

2 D. Englander, Landlord and Tenant in Urban Britain 1838 – 1918 (Oxford, 1983), pp. ix – xviii.

3 Average numbers of people per household (Mean household size or MHS (see Definitions)) and average

number of children (16 years and younger) per household (Children per household or CPH) have been

calculated from census data. MHS in this thesis includes all individuals listed in each household at any census.

76

Figure 23. Mean household size of houses in Holgate Road, St Paul’s Terrace, Railway

Terrace and St Paul’s Square

Figure 24. Number of children per household in Holgate Road, St Paul’s Terrace, Railway

Terrace and St Paul’s Square

Data have been calculated for each of the four streets from when they were first enumerated after 1841 until

1901.

77

Although isonymic household heads density differed in St Paul’s Square from the

neighbouring streets, it was in Holgate Road that differences in household size occurred over

the period. Average household size in Holgate Road was at its smallest at the first census

count, and at its highest in the other three streets when they were first occupied. Thereafter

households tended to become larger in Holgate Road as some new houses were built, and

smaller in St Paul’s Terrace, Railway Terrace and St Paul’s Square. The changes in the

number of children in the households show how these differences occurred. The households

expanded in Holgate Road with more adults as the number of children remained more or less

the same, and the families in the other streets diminished in size generally with fewer

children.4 There were usually fewer children in the houses of Holgate Road than in the other

three streets, and fewer children on average lived in all these households by the turn of the

century.5 The changes in household size and composition in Holgate do not measure fertility

decline; however, they are in line with national trends, as there was a fall in the crude birth

rate from the late 1870s and the earliest limitation of fertility in the professional classes.6

Three basic explanations have been offered for the declining fertility in the late nineteenth

century, namely the desire for a smaller family through considerations of cost, demands on

time and status, changes in natural fecundity, and changes in the methods and cost of birth

4 Burnett suggests that middle-class households in the mid-nineteenth century were larger than working-class

households because they sheltered more relatives, lodgers, visitors and servants; he notes that a middle-class

house in York had an average of 1.15 domestic servants (J. Burnett, A Social History of Housing 1815 – 1985

(London, 1986), p. 102). An increase in the number of household servants, however, does not account for the

increased number of adults per household in Holgate Road over the half century (adult servants in 82

households in Holgate Road in 1851 = 57 (average 0.7 servants per household); in 93 households in 1891 = 19

(average 0.2 servants per household); in 97 households in 1901 = 47 (average 0.5 servants per household).

5 Shifts in fertility in the early twentieth century produced clear differences in average family size and in the

numbers of children in families of different occupational groups; see M. Anderson, ‘The social implications of

demographic change’, in F.M.L. Thompson (ed.), The Cambridge Social History of Britain, 1750 – 1950:

Volume 2. People and their Environment (Cambridge, 1990), p. 44. Schürer has found that household size

began to fall only from the beginning of the twentieth century, but that mean household size remained relatively

static over the second half of the nineteenth century. There were fluctuating mean numbers of children within

households during this period (K. Schürer, E.M. Garrett, H. Jaadla and A. Reid, ‘Household and family structure

in England and Wales, 1851 – 1911: continuities and change’, Continuity and Change, 33 (2018), p. 375.).

6 E. Garrett, A. Reid, K. Schürer and S. Szreter, Changing Family Size in England and Wales: Place, Class and

Demography, 1891 – 1911 (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 1 and 321. Smith discusses the role of household formation

and age at marriage in the changes in fertility in England before the late nineteenth century: R.M. Smith,

‘Fertility, economy and household formation in England over three centuries’, Population and Development

Review, 7 (1981), p. 595.

78

control.7 Possibly the desire for a higher standard of living and concerns about housing,

utilities and furnishings encouraged the working-class parents of Holgate to limit their family

size.8

The Four Streets of Holgate

The parish of St Mary Bishophill Junior in Micklegate registration subdistrict included the

area of Holgate (later the ecclesiastical parish of St Paul) whose land and population were

disrupted in the later nineteenth century by the arrival of the railway and its workers. The

streets explored in Holgate are the working-class terraced housing of St Pauls Terrace and

adjoining Railway Terrace, and the more prosperous and elite housing of Holgate Road and

St Paul’s Square. They lie within a few yards of each other alongside the railway approach to

York station at the south-west boundary of the city. Holgate Road predated the other streets

by some centuries, but they all came to prominence as a result of the railway boom in

England during the period between 1830 and 1849. Holgate Road is a major arterial route

into the city. It leaves the township of Holgate at a stone bridge built across Holgate Beck in

1721, the boundary of the city’s suburbs.9 It travels the half mile or so to a junction with

Blossom Street, which in turn takes traffic a few hundred yards through Micklegate Bar into

the walled city. The Bishop Fields in the eighteenth century lay on either side of the road. At

the beginning of Victoria's reign the land around Holgate Road was almost entirely pasture

for cattle. Houses had been built towards its junction with the main thoroughfare into York

(Blossom Street), together with a few houses further out from the city. The road thereafter

showed linear development with time away from the city.10 The coming of the railway in the

late 1830s encouraged York Corporation to sell land on the north side of Holgate Road.

There was considerable development in the construction of houses of the villa type in Holgate

7 G. Alter, ‘Theories of fertility decline: a non-specialist’s guide to the current debate’, in J. Gillis, L. Tilly and

D. Levine (eds), The European Experience of Declining Fertility, 1850 – 1970 (Oxford, 1992), p. 14. Nelson

suggests that the middle classes limited their family sizes towards the end of the Victorian period in the

knowledge that the life expectancies of their children had improved (C. Nelson, Family Ties in Victorian

England (Westport, 2007), p. 4.). Szreter discusses the perceived relative costs of childbearing in S. Szreter,

Fertility, Class and Gender in Britain, 1860 – 1940 (1996, Cambridge, 2002), pp. 443 – 532.

8 P. Atkinson, ‘Family size and expectations about housing in the later nineteenth century: three Yorkshire

towns’, Local Population Studies, 87 (2011), p. 13.

9 C.B. Knight, A History of the City of York (York, 1944), p. 522.

10 G. Hodgson, A Walk down Holgate Road: giving a glimpse of a Victorian Suburb (York, 1997), pp. i-vii.

79

Road for residential purposes by the wealthier citizens.11 Behind this were built streets and

houses for the railway workers. This block of housing abutted the approach railway line from

Leeds into York station, and the marshalling yards and engine sheds (Figure 25). St Paul’s

Square was built between 1851 and 1867. Both St Pauls Terrace and Railway Terrace were

constructed between 1867 and 1872, relatively late in the development of housing adjoining

the railway in this area of Holgate.12 The railways thus contributed to the urban growth in

York and the building of working-class housing.

Figure 25. Railway and St Paul’s Terraces, St Paul’s Square and Holgate Road (map

published in 1893; Ordnance Survey, 1:1056 edition)

Railway and St Paul’s Terraces were linear two-storey housing with a small school at the

southerly end of St Paul’s Terrace, and separated by small back yards (Figures 26 and 27). St

Paul’s Square was also terraced housing, but the properties were three-storeyed with gardens

to the rear and faced a central tree-lined communal lawn. The houses along Holgate Road

were detached, relatively large spacious accommodation, and built with generous gardens

(Figure 28). Shops and businesses were interspersed with the houses, together with St Paul’s

11 Knight, History of the City of York, pp. 617, 657 and 668-669. Streets off Holgate Road were built between

1846 and 1872.

12 Similar housing was built to the west of the railway tracks on land abutting Holgate Road. The land was

offered for sale by auction in 1839 (York City Archives, TC 144/1), and streets were built between 1839 and

1851 (Knight, History of the City of York, pp. 668-669).

80

Rectory and Church next to Holgate Bridge over the railway lines. There were numerous

terraces along the road, with a few small courts or yards, St Paul’s Church and Rectory, St

Catherine's Hospital for a few poor widows, and also an increasing number of several high-

status villas for middle-class residents.

Figure 26. Terraced railway housing including St Paul’s Terrace and Railway Terrace in the

1950s

81

Figure 27. Back yards of railway housing in the Holgate area of York in the 1950s

Figure 28. Entrance to Mount Terrace from Holgate Road in 1922

Kinship Families of Holgate

The focus switches now to the kinship families in these Holgate streets and the forces that

shaped their life cycles and migration trajectories. The isonymic families of the streets

between 1841 and 1901 are named and listed from the census enumerators’ books in

Appendices 4 to 7. The appendices show all those heads of household coupled with a head of

the same surname in their street at each census until the end of the century. The highlighted

82

heads of household in these lists are those with probable or possible kinship links in the

street, in that they were born in the same or neighbouring place as another head of the same

surname, and/or lived in nearby houses in Holgate, and/or had the same occupation.

Kinship families are defined for our purposes as those families made of two or more

households in the same street with a head of the same surname who had an ancestor in

common, ie who were related by birth. There were 18 such families in total, and they are set

out in Tables 2 and 3.13 The distribution of heads of household of kinship families in these

streets is shown for one selected census year (1891) in Figure 29.14 There were similarities in

the social standing and occupations of the heads of households between Holgate Road and St

Paul’s Square, but a marked difference in the density and number of kinship families. They

were plentiful in Holgate Road and the opposite in St Paul’s Square. There were only four

families with a surname common to more than one head of household in the square across the

second half of the nineteenth century, and only one such family with a proven kinship link of

common ancestry. This was a family of two actuaries. William Newman, actuary to the

Yorkshire Life Assurance Company, moved to Holgate from the fashionable residences of St

Mary’s about a mile away, to be joined there by his son recently qualified from Cambridge

University, who shortly took the house next door. They lived in the relatively affluent

community of St Paul’s Square alongside household heads who shared no ties with their

neighbours through blood or marriage.

13 Family connections were sought in the censuses and baptismal records for all those heads of household who

shared a surname with at least one other head in the same street over the second half of the nineteenth century.

Heads related by birth were found in 7 of the 12 groups of heads with the same surname in Holgate Road;

corresponding figures for St Paul’s Terrace were 7 of 9; for Railway Terrace 3 of 4; for St Paul’s Square 1 of 4.

Tables 2 and 3 show the relationship between the heads of household, their places of birth and the occupation of

their fathers, the places and employment to which they moved before arriving in York, the streets and

employment within York itself before they arrived as a kinship family in Holgate, and finally their details as

kinship family members in the four streets.

14 Houses headed by kinship family members are shown in red, Railway Terrace in green, St Paul’s Terrace in

blue, St Paul’s Square in orange, and Holgate Road in yellow. The distribution of such houses in Holgate Road

is an approximation, since the house numbers in this street were not recorded accurately or reliably in the census

of 1891.

83

Figure 29. Distribution of heads of household of kinship families (red) in Holgate streets in

1891

There are stark differences in family migratory pathways in the other three streets depending

upon whether or not their livelihoods were gained by manual employment on the railway.

Working-class families, in which at least one and usually both relatives worked on the

railway, are seen in Table 2. These kinship families settled only in St Paul’s and Railway

Terraces. The more affluent and middle-class families, whose income did not come from the

railways, appear in Table 3 These close relatives came to live near each other only in

Holgate Road and St Paul’s Square.

84

Rel

atio

nshi

pS

urna

me

For

enam

eP

oBF

athe

r's

Occ

upat

ion

Mig

rati

on b

efor

e Y

ork

Occ

upat

ion

befo

re Y

ork

Res

iden

ce w

ithi

n Y

ork

bef

ore

kin

ship

fam

ily h

ome

Occ

upat

ion

wit

hin

Yor

k b

efor

e

kin

ship

fam

ily h

ome

Res

iden

ce a

s K

insh

ip f

amily

mem

ber

Occ

upat

ion

as K

insh

ip f

amily

mem

ber

Wil

liam

Mal

ton

Leed

sJo

iner

14 R

ailw

ay T

erra

ceR

ailw

ay w

agon

bui

lder

John

Mal

ton

Shoe

mak

er1

Rai

lway

Ter

race

Shoe

mak

er

John

Aco

mb

Ask

ham

Ric

hard

N

ot k

now

n2

addr

esse

s in

Wal

mga

tePo

lice

man

, the

n po

ulte

rer

32 R

ailw

ay T

erra

ceLi

ving

on

own

mea

ns; r

etir

ed g

roce

r

Wil

liam

Yor

kPo

lice

man

, pou

ltere

r, th

en g

roce

r2

addr

esse

s in

Wal

mga

te th

en 3

2 R

TFa

rm s

erva

nt in

32

RT

33 R

ailw

ay T

erra

ceR

ailw

ay s

hunt

er

Eli

zabe

thLi

verp

ool

Hul

l, th

en C

hest

erC

hild

, the

n N

ot k

now

n5

Cam

brid

ge S

tD

ress

mak

er5

Rai

lway

Ter

race

Dre

ssm

aker

Sam

uel

Live

rpoo

lH

ull,

then

Che

ster

Chi

ld, t

hen

Fitte

r &

Tur

ner

5 th

en 4

Cam

brid

ge S

tE

ngin

e fi

tter

4 R

ailw

ay T

erra

ceE

ngin

e fi

tter

John

Gat

eshe

ad

Het

ton

le H

ole

Dur

ham

,

then

Gat

eshe

ad, t

hen

Dar

ling

ton

Bla

cksm

ith29

SPT

Bla

cksm

ith39

St P

aul's

Ter

race

Bla

cksm

ith

Ada

mG

ates

head

Bla

cksm

ithD

arli

ngto

nC

hild

29 S

PTB

lack

smith

34 S

t Pau

l's T

erra

ceB

lack

smith

Wil

liam

Dur

ham

Win

lato

nN

ot k

now

nN

ot k

now

nU

nion

Str

eet,

then

55

Pric

e St

Coa

chm

aker

22 S

t Pau

l's T

erra

ceR

ailw

ay c

arri

age

buil

der

Wil

liam

Dur

ham

Gat

eshe

adR

ailw

ay c

arri

age

buil

der

Not

kno

wn

Chi

ldU

nion

Str

eet,

then

55

Pric

e St

Chi

ld, t

hen

Join

er21

St P

aul's

Ter

race

Rai

lway

car

riag

e bu

ilde

r

John

Lanc

ashi

re S

kert

onN

ot k

now

nC

hild

Dal

e St

, the

n B

ilto

n St

, the

n St

Cec

ilia

Plac

e, th

en 6

3 SP

T

Chi

ld, t

hen

Coa

ch m

aker

, the

n

Rai

lway

coa

ch b

uild

er44

St P

aul's

Ter

race

Rai

lway

fore

man

car

riag

e sh

op w

orke

r

Cha

rles

Lanc

ashi

re S

kert

onN

ot k

now

nC

hild

Dal

e St

, the

n B

ilto

n St

, the

n N

ewbe

gin

St, t

hen

Cha

rlto

n St

Chi

ld, t

hen

Coa

ch tr

imm

er56

St P

aul's

Ter

race

Rai

lway

coa

ch p

lum

mer

Rob

ert

Dar

ling

ton

Stoc

kton

, the

n D

arli

ngto

nC

hild

, the

n W

oolc

ombe

r, th

en

Boi

ler

smith

Bai

nbri

dge

Sq P

rice

St

Rai

lway

boi

ler

smith

70 S

t Pau

l's T

erra

ceR

ailw

ay b

oile

r sm

ith

Wil

liam

Dar

ling

ton

Rai

lway

boi

ler

smith

Bai

nbri

dge

Sq P

rice

St,

then

17

Pric

e St

Rai

lway

car

riag

e tr

imm

er11

St P

aul's

Ter

race

Rai

lway

car

riag

e tr

imm

er

Jose

phB

isho

ptho

rpe

Moo

r M

onkt

onW

heel

wri

ght

5 SP

TR

ailw

ay w

agon

bui

lder

55 S

t Pau

l's T

erra

ceJo

iner

Edw

ard

Moo

r M

onkt

onR

ailw

ay w

agon

bui

lder

5, th

en 5

5 SP

TC

hild

, the

n G

arde

ner

appr

entic

e14

St P

aul's

Ter

race

Rai

lway

goo

ds p

orte

r

Tho

mas

Rip

onK

nare

sbor

ough

, the

n R

ipon

Labo

urer

, the

n A

g im

plem

ent m

aker

Oxf

ord

St, t

hen

SPT

, the

n 51

SPT

Eng

ine

fitte

r, th

en E

ngin

e dr

iver

52 S

t Pau

l's T

erra

ceE

ngin

e dr

iver

Tho

mas

Man

ches

ter

Eng

ine

driv

erN

ot k

now

nC

hild

Oxf

ord

St, t

hen

SPT

, the

n 51

& 5

2 SP

TC

hild

, the

n Fi

tter,

then

Rai

lway

sto

ker

31 S

t Pau

l's T

erra

ceE

ngin

e dr

iver

Wil

liam

Yor

kE

ngin

e dr

iver

Not

kno

wn

Chi

ldSP

T, t

hen

52 S

PTC

hild

, the

n Sh

oem

aker

51 S

t Pau

l's T

erra

ceSh

oem

aker

Edw

ard

Yor

kE

ldon

St,

then

Low

ther

St,

then

76

Low

ther

St,

then

New

bigi

n St

Chi

ld, t

hen

Join

er22

then

53

St P

aul's

Ter

race

Rai

lway

wag

gon

buil

der

Geo

rge

Yor

kLo

wth

er S

t, th

en 7

6 Lo

wth

er S

t, th

en 9

7

Low

ther

St

Chi

ld, t

hen

Eng

ine

fitte

r, th

en R

ailw

ay

sign

al fi

tter

23 S

t Pau

l's T

erra

ceR

ailw

ay s

igna

l fitt

er, t

hen

insp

ecto

r

Sibl

ings

Sim

pson

Fath

er &

Son

Hut

ton

Fath

er &

2

Sons

Mal

thou

se

Fath

er &

Son

Bir

ch

Sibl

ings

Byr

neN

ot s

tate

d (D

ubli

n)

Fath

er &

Son

Alp

ort

Fath

er &

Son

Hal

l

Fath

er &

Son

Ren

niso

n

Sibl

ings

Rot

herh

amM

illw

righ

t/Whe

elw

righ

t

Sibl

ings

Mid

dlet

onSe

xton

at M

alto

n C

emet

ery

Tab

le 2

. R

ailw

ay k

insh

ip f

amil

ies

of

St

Pau

l’s

Ter

race

and R

ailw

ay T

erra

ce

85

Rela

tions

hip

Surn

ame

Fore

nam

ePo

BFa

ther

's O

ccup

atio

nM

igra

tion

befo

re Y

ork

Occ

upat

ion

befo

re Y

ork

Resid

ence

with

in Y

ork

befo

re k

insh

ip

fam

ily h

ome

Occ

upat

ion

with

in Y

ork

befo

re

kins

hip

fam

ily h

ome

Resid

ence

as K

insh

ip fa

mily

mem

ber

Occ

upat

ion

as K

insh

ip fa

mily

mem

ber

Dani

elM

ary

York

s Whi

xley

Farm

erGr

een H

amme

rton

Farm

er's

wife

and

daug

hter

Holg

ate C

resc

ent

Livi

ng o

n ow

n mea

ns

Dani

elJo

hnYo

rks W

hixl

ey3

then 2

Hol

gate

Terra

ceRe

tired

farm

er

Dani

elM

ary

York

s Whi

xley

3 Ho

lgate

Ter

race

Livi

ng o

n ow

n mea

ns

Day

Sept

imus

York

Line

n dra

per o

f Spu

rrier

gate

Spur

rierg

ateCh

ildHo

lgate

Cre

scen

tLi

nen d

rape

r

Day

Jame

sYo

rkLi

nen d

rape

r of S

t Sav

iour

gate

New

ton o

n Ous

eDr

aper

Holg

ate T

erra

ceLi

nen d

rape

r

Forb

esGe

orgi

ana

Durh

am W

ellin

gton

Neith

rop,

Oxf

ords

hire

Vica

r's w

ife10

then

53

Holg

ate T

erra

ceRe

nts o

f hou

ses

Forb

esGe

orgi

ana

Banb

ury O

xon

Vica

rNe

ithro

p, O

xfor

dshi

reNo

t stat

ed10

then

53

Holg

ate T

erra

ceNo

t stat

ed

Harri

son

Rich

ard

York

s Gill

ing

Whe

ldra

keJo

iner

Oxfo

rd S

treet

Join

er &

Car

pente

r76

Hol

gate

Road

Join

er

Harri

son

Will

iam

York

s Whe

ldra

ke77

Hol

gate

Road

Bric

klay

er

Hatti

eJo

seph

York

s Stai

nfor

thAd

wic

k le S

treet,

then

Bar

nby u

pon D

on, t

hen G

ate F

ulfo

rdSh

oema

ker,

then A

g lab

, the

n Wire

man

21 W

est P

arad

eTe

legr

aph c

lerk

Hatti

eGe

orge

York

s Adw

ick l

e Stre

etW

irema

nBa

rnby

upon

Don

, the

n Gate

Ful

ford

Child

, the

n Wire

man

2 Ho

lgate

Roa

dTe

legr

aph w

orke

r

Haw

kin/

sJo

hn H

orsle

yPo

pple

ton

Huby

, the

n Oul

ston Y

orks

hire

Farm

serv

ant,

then H

ind

79 H

olga

te Ro

adDa

iryma

n & G

roce

r, the

n Coa

l mer

chan

t

Haw

kin/

sTh

omas

Popp

leto

nDa

rton,

then B

arug

h Yor

kshi

reAg

lab,

then

Far

mer a

nd S

hopk

eepe

r4

Holg

ate R

oad

Frui

terer

& G

arde

ner,

then P

hoto

grap

hic a

rtist

Pick

erin

gJo

hnAc

aster

Mal

bis

Farm

erM

atloc

kM

erch

ant

Holg

ate H

illRe

tired

woo

llen m

erch

ant

Pick

erin

gPa

rker

Bish

optho

rpe

Farm

erTh

e Mou

nt, th

en M

ount

Para

deSo

licito

r's cl

erk

59 H

olga

te Hi

llCa

shie

r to

Solic

itor,

then A

nnui

tant

New

man

Will

iam

York

Leed

sAp

pren

tice

St H

elen

's Sq

uare

, the

n St M

arys

Actua

ry22

St P

auls

Squa

reRe

tired

actua

ry

New

man

Phili

pYo

rkAc

tuary

St M

arys

Child

22, t

hen 2

3 St

Pau

ls Sq

uare

Actua

ry

Cous

ins

Fathe

r & S

on

Sibl

ings

Mot

her &

Daug

hter

Sibl

ings

Fathe

r & S

on

Sibl

ings

Farm

er

Tab

le 3

. N

on

-Rai

lway

kin

ship

fam

ilie

s of

Holg

ate

Road

an

d S

t P

aul’

s S

qu

are

86

The working-class railway kinship families of St Paul’s Terrace and Railway Terrace in the

nineteenth century were either fathers and their sons, or pairs of siblings. Similar relations

took up residence in Holgate Road, and a vicar’s widow and her daughter and some cousins

also migrated into Holgate Road.15 Arrivals into the working-class terraces had been born

mainly in the industrial regions of the North East and Lancashire, such as Gateshead and

Darlington, Liverpool and Skerton near Lancaster. These families evidently did not originate

in the first wave of the rural exodus.16 A small number of railwaymen in these kinship

families had moved into Holgate from York itself and the villages within a few miles of the

city. Rural origins were the norm, however, for the kinship families of Holgate Road, most

of them arriving from villages in the vicinity of York. Only one family came from further

afield, the vicar’s widow and daughter making the long journey from a parish in rural

Oxfordshire to the ecclesiastically important city of York.

The stock from which the working-class families of the two terraces emerged was manual or

semi-skilled labour. The father of William and John Middleton was the sexton at Malton

cemetery in North Yorkshire, the father of Elizabeth and Samuel Rotherham was a millwright

and wheelwright of Liverpool, and James Byrne with his two sons had migrated from Dublin

to Lancashire, presumably in flight from the potato famine in Ireland. These families were

not socially mobile. The kinship families of Holgate Road, by contrast, showed some signs

of social climbing, and some settled in this more affluent community in retirement. The

Daniels, a wealthy farming family in a village outside the city, moved into York on

retirement, and cousins John and Parker Pickering came from a farming heritage to Holgate

Road following careers as a woollen merchant and solicitor’s cashier.17 Others established

trades and businesses along the road, rising from more humble origins on the land, such as

15 The assumption is made that Septimus and James Day were cousins, since they had the same occupation of

linen draper in Holgate Road, and both their fathers were linen drapers of nearby streets in York. The ancestry

of their fathers has not been confirmed from parish registers.

16 J. Saville, Rural Depopulation in England and Wales, 1851-1951 (London, 1957), p. 5. Saville notes that a

considerable proportion of English rural parishes began population decline between 1821 and 1851.

17 The gross value of the estate of William Newman at his death, resident of St Paul’s Square, was about £2000,

equating to more than £200,000 in today’s terms (registered at the District Probate Registry of York on 12

January 1903). The estate of the vicar’s widow was valued at about £2700 in 1897, equating to more than

£300,000 in today’s terms (registered at the District Probate Registry of York on 8 June 1897). Mary Daniel, a

spinster and annuitant on leaving farming, left an estate valued at £11,324 in 1894, a figure in excess of a

million pounds in today’s terms (registered at the District Probate Registry of York on 2 January 1894).

Monetary values derived from: www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator.

87

the Harrison brothers’ joinery and bricklaying businesses next door to each other and the

Hawkins brothers’ market gardening and provisions concerns.

Kinship families often moved some distance from their birthplace before their arrival in

York. These distances occasionally were short, even from one village to the next, but

sometimes longer from one town or city to another. Some men who were destined to work

on the railways in the working-class terraces of Holgate moved initially from one industrial

base to another: a joiner who moved from Malton to Leeds; a fitter and turner who moved

from Liverpool to Chester via Hull; a blacksmith who moved from Gateshead to Hetton-le-

Hole, Durham, then Darlington; a boilersmith who moved from Darlington to Stockton then

back to Darlington again; and a wheelwright who moved from the rural village of

Bishopthorpe just outside York to a neighbouring village. Some of these individuals

migrated as children with their labouring families. Likewise some tradesmen, professional

persons and farming stock migrated via places other than York before settling there as

kinship families. The wife of the vicar in Neithrop, Oxfordshire, was born in Durham. The

telegraph workers of Holgate Road settled in several small places in Yorkshire before

arriving in York, as did the progeny from workers on the land. These more affluent arrivals

in Holgate Road had tended to leave their birthplaces as working adults, not as children as the

working-class families of Holgate were prone to do. Seemingly the working-class kinship

families of the two terraces in Holgate had migrated to affordable and available housing at an

earlier stage in their life cycle than the middle-class families of Holgate Road.18

Having arrived in York, all but one of the families destined to settle as kinship groups in the

railway terraces of Holgate changed addresses in the city, usually more than once and up to

four times. These houses were invariably the same working-class terraces as those they came

to inhabit in Holgate. Sometimes relatives moved into Railway Terrace or St Paul’s Terrace

in the same or separate houses, only to move again along the street as head of household in a

new home. In five of the ten kinship families who came to inhabit these two terraces, father

lived next door to his son or brother next door to his sibling. The retirees, tradesmen,

businessmen and professionals of Holgate Road and St Paul’s Square, on the other hand,

tended not to live elsewhere within the city before arrival in Holgate. But, just like their

18 Middle-class home ownership represented the realization of that independent status coveted by working-class

people (Englander, Landlord and Tenant, pp. ix – xviii).

88

working-class neighbours a few streets away, kinship family members tended to inhabit

adjacent well-to-do houses.

Walmgate

This section plots changes in the surname indices in two streets in the low-lying Walmgate

district of York and describes the kinship families that lived there. Long Close Lane and

Hope Street are shown in red in Figure 30. They are adjoined and run alongside the city wall

(black) a short distance from Walmgate itself (blue). The area was prone to flooding from

the Foss (shown in orange) which lay several streets to the north of Long Close Lane and

Hope Street.

Figure 30. Walmgate area of York (map published in 1893; Ordnance Survey, 1:1056

edition)

In contrast with the relatively new Victorian railway housing of Holgate, the district of

Walmgate at the south east border of the City of York was built by the end of the Viking

89

age.19 Walmgate was enclosed within the mediaeval defences of the city by the twelfth

century, when the Bar (or gate) was built and the River Foss and the low-lying marsh were

considered sufficient defence to obviate the construction of a wall in this area. The Foss was

widened to make the King’s pool, a lake which served the mills of the castle and supplied fish

for the household there. Three churches were built in Walmgate in the twelfth century, St

Denys, St Margaret and St Peter-le-Willows. Common land (Walmgate stray) provided

pasture for animals outside the walls.

Walmgate once had many mediaeval houses and was an aristocratic part of the city. Ribbon

development took place outside the Bar in the twelfth century and the leper hospice of St

Nicholas was built there. The inhabitants of Walmgate were quarantined in their houses in

the plague of 1631 and a survey of the following year recorded more paupers in this ward

than in any other in the city.20 The number of paupers in Walmgate in 1637 was three times

greater than in the most prosperous district of York and nearly half of the households there

were too poor to pay the Hearth Tax of 1672. Poor relief in the ward averaged about £100

per annum during the 1720s whereas relief was about £70 in Bootham and Micklegate. The

area became prosperous in the later eighteenth century when many houses were used as town

residencies by wealthy families, who subsequently rented out then sold these properties. A

school was established outside Walmgate Bar in 1798 for the education of poor children.

Six churches once stood in Walmgate, those of St Denys, St Margaret, St Mary, St George, St

Edward the Martyr and St Peter-le-Willow. New churches were built to meet the demands of

inhabitants outside the city walls in Victorian York, including the Roman Catholic church of

St George in 1850 to accommodate the Irish influx. A girls school attached to the church

opened in 1852 and this became mixed 20 years later. The pupils were predominantly Irish

and taught by the Sisters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul. The Sunday School for Walmgate

in 1819 educated 100 boys and 124 girls. Nonconformity also had a foothold in the area. A

19 All the details of the history of Walmgate quoted in this and the following page have been taken from 3 texts:

A. Stacpoole (ed.), The Noble City of York (York, 1972); V. Wilson, The Walmgate Story (2006, York, 2012);

and P. Nuttgens (ed.), The History of York: From Earliest Times to the Year 2000 (Pickering, 2001).

20 See C. Galley, The Demography of Early Modern Towns: York in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries

(Liverpool, 1998), pp. 76 – 83. Only the small parish of St Lawrence in Walmgate was badly affected by plague

in 1631.

90

Quaker Mission School in Hope Street was open from 1828 until 1890, the Hungate Mission

was established in 1861 and a Methodist chapel in 1826.

Industry and commerce flourished in Walmgate. The cattle market from the sixteenth

century was sited in long close field beside the Bar, before Long Close Lane was built in

1810. Adjoining Hope Street was built between 1823 and 1830. The market building was

built in 1826. Before the market was contained outside Walmgate Bar, cattle were sold in the

streets. The Foss Islands railway branch line carried traffic from 1879, and this and the cattle

market provided employment and drew in other businesses. A lead mill, cotton

manufacturer, cocoa works, woollen warehouse, match mill, plane and tool manufacturer,

artificial manure manufacturer, looking glass business, bone-crusher and rape dust dealer,

provision merchants, steam marble works, seed merchants, a brewery and pipe-making

business operated between the late eighteenth and early twentieth centuries. Barges on the

Foss supplied iron for ironworks, iron founders, engineers and whitesmiths. Little businesses

such as butchers, grocers, sweet and tobacco shops abounded in the early twentieth century,

and Listers flour mill dominated the skyline.

The Irish community occupied Walmgate from the mid-nineteenth century into the 1930s,

together with Russians, Italians, Chinese and other races, Catholics, Protestants and Jews.

The area had a small Irish population before the famine, and they were attracted by chicory

cultivation, cattle and other forms of agriculture. Some were attracted in chain migration by

relatives already settled in York, and others because they had heard of work in the area. The

Quakers, and in particular Samuel Tuke, showed particular concern for these migrants.21

Irish politics found expression in the Loyalist Irish Organisation and the Irish National

League Club. The number of public houses and other unlicensed beer shops (sometimes just

the front room of a house) peaked in the 1880s. The Brown Cow in Hope Street resembled a

house from the outside and inside ‘there was the best room through the first door, and another

at the other end where the men used to go, and all the women used to sit in the passage’.22

The York Coffee House Company opened a building dedicated to temperance principles in

1892 (‘an island of temperance in a sea of pubs’23). Epidemic typhus hit the overcrowded

21 See W.K. and E.M. Sessions, The Tukes of York in the Seventeenth, Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries

(York, 1971), for the life of Samuel Tuke (1784-1857).

22 Violet Quigley quoted in Wilson, Walmgate Story, p. 138.

23 Quotation of The York Civic Trust in Wilson, Walmgate Story, p. 104.

91

Irish inhabitants of Walmgate in 1847, followed by an outbreak of cholera the following year.

A temporary fever hospital housed typhus victims in 1850, replaced by a permanent building

in 1881.

Dr Thomas Laycock, physician to the York dispensary, reported in dispassionate language

the grossly insanitary condition of life in Long Close Lane and Hope Street at the middle of

the nineteenth century shortly before the arrival of Irish migrants. No drainage or sewerage

had been built into the cottage tenements, and the street was ‘unpaved and so full of ruts and

ashes and all kinds of filth, as to be quite impassable to pedestrians or even to persons on

horseback’.24 The Lane had been built somewhat higher than the houses and the yards such

that stagnant mud flowed through the premises and even into the street behind. One privy

had been built to service as many as 14 families.25 The door of the common privy at each end

of the Lane opened on to the door of a tenement with no ventilation between the two. Night

soil was retained and barrowed during the night from the yards into the street. The sewage

was then carted away to large dung hills, one of which lay at the side of the nearby River

Foss. Inhabitants complained about the stench. In addition to human effluent, the manure

from numerous pigsties, cow-houses and stables in the courts and yards compounded an

already intolerable situation. The street was so filthy that even children would not play in

it.26 Paid scavengers made an attempt to clean the alleys and courts.27

Walmgate thus had witnessed relative affluence for part of its history, bustling industry, and

poverty due in some measure to its low-lying position and proximity to the River Foss. Some

oral testimonies, however, speak of integration and a strong spirit of community. ‘We all

24 First Report of The Commissioners for inquiring into the state of large towns and populous districts 1844;

Report on the sanatory condition of the City of York, by Thos Laycock, M.D. Also Y.H. 17.8.1844: Report on

the Sanatory State of York, in Reply to the Questions Circulated by the Health of Towns Commission. Mr

Snow, one of the missionaries of the Hungate district of York, reported to the York City Mission that Walmgate

‘presents more than its just proportion of the low and the lost, the depraved and demoralised of the York

population … and that absence of mental and moral culture which such an unpromising exterior would indicate.’

See also S.M. Gaskell (ed.), Slums (Leicester, 1990), p. 2.

25 The archaeological excavation of one such sewerage system is described in P.A. Connelly, ‘Flush with the

past: An insight into late nineteenth-century Hungate and its role in providing a better understanding of urban

development’, International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 15 (2011), p. 607.

26 Y.H., 5.2.1848. A report of ‘… several boys playing, during which one of them ran into Long Close Lane,

when a companion called out to him not to go there, as that street was filthy and unwholesome to be in; …’

27 Y.H., 25.11.1843.

92

turned to crime’, said Owen Calpin of life in the 1920s, ‘we didn’t call it crime, we called it

existence … We never left Walmgate as kids … Every house we visited was exactly the same

as ours’. His grandparents lived in Hope Street: ‘It was lovely to listen on dark nights to these

old people, six or seven old Irishmen sitting round the fire. If they did say anything against

the English, it used to go over my head because I was listening for the stories from Ireland ...

Tales of Ireland and the old days inevitably brought forth an emotional response, and the men

would often cry… There were English families with [Irish families] but they tolerated each

other for the simple reason that they were all living in the same environment. They were

sharing whatever they had, over the years it did form a camaraderie between them …’ The

Irish loved to hear songs which reminded them of home.28

Attempts to improve living conditions in Walmgate began in the mid-nineteenth century.29

The Local Board of Health drained the Foss Islands from 1852, and began an attack on the

worst slums in 1872 with proceedings to condemn houses in Barleycorn Passage. The

concerted assault on slum housing began in 1919 and in the next twenty years almost 2000

houses were demolished and new housing estates built elsewhere in the city. Mass clearances

began in 1933-34.

Surname Indices of Walmgate

The surname indices drawn from the populations of Long Close Lane and Hope Street in the

Victorian period are shown in Figures 31 to 35. The graphs are calculated from the total

populations of each street, the total Irish- and York-born populations, the adult Irish- and

York-born populations, and the Irish- and York-born household heads across all of the

censuses.30

28 Owen Calpin quoted in Wilson, Walmgate Story, pp. 47, 98, 99 and 102.

29 Stacpoole, The Noble City of York, p. 330. See also Connelly, ‘Flush with the past’, p. 609.

30 The individuals included in the Irish population are those whose place of birth was recorded as Ireland in the

censuses, and the individuals registered in the York population are those whose place of birth was recorded as

York. The census of 1841 does not make this distinction in the place of birth of the residents. The surname

indices calculated from household heads are drawn from families in Long Close Lane and Hope Street

combined, since the number of houses in each street individually was relatively small.

93

Figure 31. Surname indices of the total populations of Long Close Lane

Figure 32. Surname indices of the total populations of Hope Street

94

Figure 33. Surname indices of the adult populations of Long Close Lane

Figure 34. Surname indices of the adult populations of Hope Street

95

Figure 35. Surname indices of the household heads of Long Close Lane and Hope Street

The graphs show similar patterns in the two streets from 1861 until the end of the century in

the total and adult populations. They show little variation, but usually a downward trend over

the period. This implies that there was generally a minor fall in the number of surnames

relative to people (or possibly a minor increase in density of kinship families) in the streets

across the second half of the nineteenth century.

Analysis of the populations in the census years once the residents have been separated into

Irish and York birthplace, however, shows a marked contrast in surname indices after 1861.

The total and adult Irish populations showed a low surname index at this census and

thereafter a steady rise until the end of the century, indicating a rising number of surnames

relative to people, or possibly a falling proportion of related household members in the years

after the arrival of the first famine immigrants in York. On the other hand, the total and adult

indigenous York-born populations in these streets showed their lowest surname index in

1901, indicating the steady relative decline of surnames and possibly the growth of related

York household members over this period. This switch of Irish- and York-born kinship

families is seen in household heads only in the last decade of the nineteenth century. The

overall picture that emerges from this look at the Irish residents in Long Close Lane and

Hope Street is a rise in the number of surnames of Irish immigrants relative to the number of

people. A possible explanation includes the arrival of related people with the same surname

(or unrelated people coincidentally with the same common Irish surname) and then their

dilution as the century progressed as people intermarried, bore children in York, or left the

96

street. Such changes in the immigrant population match the adaptation seen in Victorian

London, where the demographic behaviour of the urban Irish soon came to resemble the host

population.31

However, the picture is somewhat different in the two streets in the early years of the Irish

immigration in the decade before 1861. The surname indices related to the Irish residents

rose and the indices related to the indigenous York residents fell in Long Close Lane in the

1850s, with the opposite pattern in Hope Street. The density of Irish people with the same

surname fell over the course of this decade in Long Close Lane (as it did for the rest of the

century), and rose in Hope Street. Possibly there was a different pattern of arrival of the

immigrant kinship families (or unrelated families with the same common surname) in the two

streets. The indices suggest they may have arrived before 1851 in Long Close Lane and then

diluted over the ensuing decades, but continued to arrive in Hope Street until 1861. Possibly

immigrant Irish families saturated available housing in Long Close Lane soon after their

arrival en masse into York and thereafter moved into residences in Hope Street.

The Two Streets of Walmgate

Long Close Lane and Hope Street were in the parish of St George (Figure 36). The houses

had two floors with a single room on each, and had access at the rear to communal yards with

privies. Narrow passages between houses connected the streets to some of these yards, which

were given their own identity with separate names at the censuses. These named yards are

highlighted in yellow on the map: Pawson’s and Skelton’s yards, Wood’s yard, Square &

Compass yard and Lewis yard behind Long Close Lane, and Place’s yard and Hotham’s yard

between the two streets. Some houses and tenements clustered around these yards. A public

house, the Brown Cow, was part of the terraced housing in Hope Street (Figure 37), and a

somewhat larger public house, the Square & Compass, lay at the end of Long Close Lane

(blue on the map).

31 L. Lees, Exiles of Erin: Irish Migrants in Victorian London (Manchester, 1987), pp. 136 - 138.

97

Figure 36. Long Close Lane and Hope Street (map published in 1893; Ordnance Survey,

1:1056 edition)

Figure 37. Long Close Lane in the early twentieth century

The rear of the Brown Cow public house faces Duke of York Place in Long Close Lane

98

Kinship Families of Walmgate

A more detailed look at individual families expands on the implications of the surname

indices. Isonymic families in streets in Walmgate are defined as those families in which there

was more than one head of household with the same surname at any one time. The surnames

of all the household heads of these families in Long Close Lane and Hope Street between

1841 and 1901 are listed in Appendices 8 and 9.32 These tables show all those isonymic

families in the streets with at least 2 heads of household with the same surname in any one

census, the total number of heads of household of each isonymic family across the period,

and the place of origin of the first arrival identified from the census enumeration books.

Families in these streets originated from Ireland, York and other places in Yorkshire, and

very occasionally from other counties in England and even in other countries outside Great

Britain (an Italian family of street musicians in Hope Street). In this way the relative overall

size of these isonymic families is seen. The distribution of isonymic heads of household of

families in these streets taken from these two Appendices is shown for one selected census

year (1891) in Figure 38.33 Isonymic heads of Irish extraction congregated towards the west

end of Long Close Lane around Pawson’s and Skelton’s yards by 1891, but they were

randomly distributed along Hope Street.

32 It has not been possible to establish with any degree of confidence connections by birth or marriage between

Irish heads of household with the same surname because of inadequate surviving census data in Ireland. The

complexities of Irish surnames are explored in G. Redmonds, T. King and D. Hey, Surnames, DNA, and Family

History (Oxford, 2011), pp. 54 – 55 & 94 – 98.

33 This figure shows the distribution in 1891 of heads of household with a surname shared with at least one other

head of household in the same street in 1891 or two heads of household in the street in any one of the preceding

census years since 1841. Those houses headed by a person whose surname was shared by an individual

identified on first arrival as Irish are shown in red, and similar houses of non-Irish (almost entirely

York/Yorkshire) extraction are shown in blue. Long Close Lane is shown in pink, Hope Street in green, and

yards in yellow. House numbers are taken from the 1891 census and a slum-clearance map of Walmgate dated

1913; the distribution of a few houses in yards is an approximation, since some yards are named in the census

listing but not on the map.

99

Figure 38. Distribution of isonymic heads of household of Irish (red) and non-Irish (blue)

families in Walmgate streets by 1891

Isonymic families are shown in graphical format in Figures 39 and 40. These figures show

for each street and at each census the total number of ‘new’ arrivals of isonymic families,

separated by their place of origin (or birthplace). New arrivals refer to household heads with

a surname that had not been present as a head in previous censuses.

Figure 39. New isonymic family arrivals in Long Close Lane

100

Figure 40. New isonymic family arrivals in Hope Street

Several differences are apparent in isonymic families between these two streets. Hope Street

housed many more such families across the half century than Long Close Lane. At the start

of the period Irish headship arrivals in Hope Street were heavily outnumbered by arrivals

from Yorkshire (and presumably from York itself). The new arrivals from York and

elsewhere declined in general in both streets by the end of the century. As predicted from the

surname indices, the Irish isonymic head arrivals peaked in Long Close Lane in 1851 and

declined thereafter. There were no more new arrivals after 1871. In Hope Street on the other

hand, new isonymic family head arrivals peaked 10 years later than in Long Close Lane, and

they continued to arrive until at least 1891. Possibly the availability of housing or the desire

to live in proximity to fellow countrymen influenced this pattern.

On the basis of this analysis the largest isonymic families are explored now with census

information and other qualitative sources. Isonymic families identified in the two appendices

with a total of 7 or more household heads in Long Close Lane and 9 or more in Hope Street

across this period were chosen for this further study (Tables 4 and 5). These tables show for

each family the birthplace of the first head (or heads) of household to arrive, the number of

household heads in the subsequent censuses, and the total number of heads of household

across the period. The stippled boxes indicate those census years before the first arrival of a

head of household of an isonymic family. The plots of these isonymic families are tabulated

in Appendix 10.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Num

ber

of

New

Arr

ival

s of

Isonym

ic

Fam

ilie

s

Year

Origin from Ireland

Origin Elsewhere

101

Table 4. Isonymic household heads of Long Close Lane

Table 5. Isonymic household heads of Hope Street

Some differences are immediately apparent between Long Close Lane and Hope Street on

first inspection of these families. Most first arrivals in the former originated from Ireland,

and most in the latter from York or elsewhere in Yorkshire. The Irish heads of the Lane

arrived over a period of more than 10 years. The first to arrive by 1841 was William Kelly

with his wife and five children, three of whom had been born after their parents’ emigration

from Ireland. The last to arrive by 1861 were John Gallagher and three Calpins, brothers

James and Michael and their cousin John. The fathers of these Calpins originated from

County Mayo, they had emigrated with their Irish wives, and all their children had been born

in York.34 One of the most prolific families of Walmgate in the nineteenth century, the

Brannans, had arrived from Ireland by 1851, when seven separate households of Irish couples

and women had taken up residence in Long Close Lane. In five of these households there

were babies and older children born in either Ireland or York. The youngest Irish child in this

kinship family in the Lane in 1851 was 9 year old Bridget, and the oldest 30 year old John.

The oldest child born in York was 7 year old Patrick, and the youngest a newborn called

34 R. Calpin, The Calpins of York: The First 60 Years.

Surname Origin Total Heads

1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

Calpin Ireland 3 2 5 2 4 16

Brannon Ireland 7 1 1 1 2 1 13

Gallagher Ireland 1 2 2 3 1 9

Kelly Ireland 1 1 2 4 8

McDonald Tadcaster 1 1 2 2 1 7

Thompson Ireland 1 1 1 1 3 7

Heads of Household

Surname Origin Total Heads

1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

Smith Yorkshire 1 2 4 1 1 1 5 15

Brown Yorkshire 3 4 3 1 1 12

Thompson Yorkshire 5 4 1 1 11

Calpin York 1 4 5 10

Ryan Ireland & York 4 1 2 1 1 9

Heads of Household

102

Mary. Presumably John had made the journey from Ireland with his parents, but Long Close

Lane may have been the first residence in England for the other three Brannan children. The

last of these Irish families to arrive in Long Close Lane by 1851 was the Thompson

household, with three children born in Ireland, Manchester and York. This family is the only

Irish family to arrive in this street for which there is some evidence of having settled

elsewhere before York after emigration from Ireland. The last of these kinship families of

Long Close Lane was the McDonald household, who had arrived by 1851. Father and head

of household came from Tadcaster and his wife from Malton, both small towns in the vicinity

of York. They had recently arrived from Malton with their first-born, a place of birth for an

Irish branch of McDonalds that settled in the Lane some 30 years later.

Three of the five largest families with isonymic heads of household of Hope Street, by

contrast, had arrived by 1841, and these three heads had been born in Yorkshire (or York). A

further family of isonymic heads, the Ryan family, arrived 20 years later in 1861, and Patrick

Calpin (half brother of John resident in Long Close Lane) arrived 20 years later. Whereas

most of the first arrivals of these large families with isonymic heads of household appeared

after 1841 in Long Close Lane, most such families were already present in Hope Street by

1841. The Smiths, Browns, Calpins and Thompsons lived in the street with their children

born in York. Three of the Ryan heads came across from Ireland to Hope Street together

with some children, with no indication of whether or how they were related; the other Ryan

head of household, a single woman and presumably a widow, had children born locally and

no apparent connection with Ireland.

The subsequent arrivals of new households with isonymic heads followed the same general

pattern as their predecessors in Long Close Lane and Hope Street, that is to say largely Irish-

born heads arrived in the Lane and York-born heads in the Street. Couples in the Lane and in

the Street arrived with children who had been born in York, suggesting that the Irish couples

had lived elsewhere in the city after their emigration from Ireland. There were, however,

some exceptions to this trend, notably the arrival of John Calpin who had been born in

Durham and Thomas Brannon with his children born in Goole, Leeds and Hull. Possibly

these men were reunited in Walmgate after their travels in England with their kin from

Ireland.

These households exhibited transience and mobility in their occupation of houses,

particularly with the heads of household of Irish extraction. About two thirds of the heads of

103

household were present in Long Close Lane or Hope Street at only one census enumeration

between 1841 and 1901, although the very occasional head lived in these two streets for

periods in excess of 30 years.35 Also, although identification of individual houses in these

streets is not usually possible because they were not numbered at the censuses, there were

few heads of household living in the same or a different identifiable house at more than one

census. In the Lane, one Irish Calpin and two York-born Thompsons lived in the same house

for at least 10 years, and six families lived in at least two separate houses each over the

period. The occupants of one house in 1871 were replaced ten years later by relatives from

Ireland. And in Hope Street, the family and children of one York-born head (Matthew

Brown, shoemaker cum grocer cum overseer) lived in the same house for at least 30 years,

and five families lived in at least two separate houses. The most mobile households were

those of Irishmen Michael Calpin and Patrick Ryan who each lived in four different houses in

these streets.36

The kin connections of two particular large kinship families of these streets are explored now,

the Brannans of Long Close Lane and the Calpins who inhabited both Long Close Lane and

Hope Street.

The Brannan Family

The number of individuals with the surname Brannan at the census of 1881 appears in the

map of England in Figure 41, the darker the colour the greater the number.37 The Brannans

were concentrated at this time in Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire (including

York), suggesting that these people had spread inland to an extent from their port of entry

(Liverpool) after emigrating.

35 Periods of presence at census enumerations in Long Close Lane were: less than 10 years = 21 heads, 10-20

years = 5 heads, 20-30 years = 3 heads, more than 30 years = 2 heads; and in Hope Street were: less than 10

years = 17 heads, 10-20 years = 5 heads, 20-30 years = 3 heads, 30-40 years = 1 head, more than 40 years = 1

head.

36 Some Irish families in 1850s London flitted continually to avoid paying the rent (H. McLeod, Class and

Religion in the Late Victorian City (London, 1974), p. 9.)

37 The data for Figures 41 and 42 have been taken from a CD: The British 19th Century Surname Atlas (Archer

Software, 2003). The key to the colours in Figure 41 is: Dark brown = 301-500 people per county, orange =

101-160 people, light brown = 51-100 people, yellow = 1-50 people.

104

Figure 41. Number of people with the surname Brannan at the census of 1881

(Lancashire = 318 Brannans, West Riding of Yorkshire = 334 Brannans)

The Brannan kinship family was one of the most numerous kinship families of Long Close

Lane, with a length of stay in excess of 50 years. This family was notorious in the city, when

Michael Brannan in the 1860s and 70s was said to be one of the most prolific Irish offenders

in the city of his time.38 Ten households of this family inhabited the Lane for variable lengths

of time throughout the second half of the nineteenth century after the first arrival of the

immigrants in York.39 Five of these households were present there, however, only at the time

of the 1851 census, often with children who had made the journey over with them from

Ireland and occasionally with children who had been born in the City of York after 1844.

Thereafter these households either died out or left the city altogether. Only two other

branches, the families of Thomas and Cecily Brannan and Ambrose and Bridget Brannan,

lived in Long Close Lane in 1851 and stayed in the city for at least another ten years.

Ambrose and Bridget and their four children moved the short distance to Clancy’s Yard in

Walmgate by 1861 and disappeared from York thereafter. The descendants of Thomas and

38 F. Finnegan, Poverty and Prejudice: A Study of Irish Immigrants in York 1840-1875 (Cork, 1982), pp. 58 –

59. Many of his offences are described in the York Herald, and some are detailed in Chapter 6.

39 The spellings of the surname of this family include Brannan, Brannon, Brannen, and Brenan.

105

Cecily, however, continued to live in Long Close Lane or streets nearby until at least the

census of 1911. The 20 descendants of this couple spanned four generations. Three of their

children arrived with them from Ireland, but their other two offspring and all the remaining

grandchildren and great grand-daughter were born in York. Each household of this large

family lived at a different address in each census, but all stayed within Long Close Lane or

streets nearby in Walmgate.

Three other households of the Brannan family arrived in the Lane in the decades after 1851,

the adults having been born in Ireland. James Brenan and his sister had arrived by 1861,

along with their neighbours Michael Brennan and his wife Catherine. Michael was

accompanied by his brother, and his two children were born after the family’s arrival in York.

Michael and Catherine and their extended family remained in the Lane until after 1871.

Thomas and Kate Brannon had arrived in Lewis Yard, Long Close Lane by 1891, having

travelled from Ireland to Goole, Leeds and Hull before York, where their children had been

born. At least one of their offspring, Mary, survived to leave the city and travelled to Wigan

then Normanton by 1911, where she had married Patrick Brannon, potentially a cousin.

The Calpin Family

The number of Calpins in the census of 1881 is depicted below in Figure 42.40 As with the

number of Brannans, the Calpins were concentrated to an extent in Lancashire, around the

port of entry from Ireland into Liverpool. The greatest number of individuals with the

surname Calpin at this time, however, was present in the City of York.

40 The key to the colours is: Dark brown = 21-30 people, orange = 11-16 people, light brown = 6-10 people,

yellow = 1-5 people.

106

Figure 42. Number of people with the surname Calpin at the census of 1881

(Lancashire = 21 Calpins, West Riding of Yorkshire = 11 Calpins, York = 45 Calpins)

The Calpin kinship family of the streets of Walmgate in the nineteenth century descended

from a common ancestor in County Mayo.41 Two sons of this ancestor, James and Patrick, in

turn fathered sons in Ireland who arrived in Long Close Lane and Hope Street over the course

of the second half of the nineteenth century. Patrick himself also seemingly travelled to

York, since he took a second wife and had a third son by her born in the city. James’ two

sons arrived with their Irish wives in adjacent houses in Long Close Lane by 1861, and

fathered numerous children there. One of these sons left the Lane for a nearby street in 1871

but had returned within the decade. The other son, Michael, remained as household head in

several different houses along Long Close Lane and Hope Street for at least a further 40 years

until the end of the century. Indeed his children remained in the neighbourhood of these two

streets for the same period of time, occasionally leaving only to return at a subsequent census,

occasionally moving only a few doors down the street, and occasionally living in a house

only a few yards away from their siblings or parents.

41 The genealogies of the Calpin family have been taken from census enumerations and an unpublished book:

Calpin, The Calpins of York.

107

Two of Patrick’s sons and a grandson (Farroll) arrived in this neighbourhood before 1861 or

in the 20 years thereafter, and again had several children born in York. These families too

tended to remain in the neighbourhood until at least 1900, and to flit locally between houses

along the streets. A further member of this family, John Calpin, visited Long Close Lane

having been born in Durham, to live in the same house as Farroll at the census of 1881. Two

other Calpins of unknown lineage with the rest of the kinship family lived in yards off the

Lane and the Street for brief periods of time towards the end of the century.

In summary this section has plotted the arrivals and some aspects of the life cycles of some

Irish kinship families in two streets of Walmgate in York. Hope Street attracted more

isonymic families over the half century, and Irish kinship family head arrivals peaked in

Long Close Lane in 1851. Families, and particularly those of Irish extraction, showed

transience and mobility in their occupation of houses. They tended regularly to move to a

different house in the same street, occasionally to leave their street and subsequently return,

and occasionally to live in a separate house only a few yards away from their siblings or

parents. Two of the largest kinship families of this neighbourhood, the Brannans and the

Calpins, had moved inland from their port of entry from Ireland and established complex

lineages that remained in the city until the end of the century and beyond.

How migrant families in Holgate and Walmgate in York compare with migrant families from

Swaledale, and how the study of these kinship families in urban and rural settings sheds light

on the research questions posed in the Introduction, are discussed in Chapters 6 and 7 of this

thesis.

108

Chapter 4

Surname Indices and Migration: Kinship Families of Swaledale

The previous chapter explored demographic change and surname indices in the urban setting

of Victorian York. This chapter turns for comparison to some indices of demographic change

and the fate of kinship families in nineteenth-century Swaledale.1 The map below (Figure

43) shows the four rural districts, and the villages and hamlets of the dale, located for the

most part along the banks of the river Swale and its tributaries.

Figure 43. The four districts, villages, hamlets and River Swale in Upper Swaledale

The villages of Muker, Gunnerside, Reeth, Grinton and Arkle Town are shown as red ovals,

and the hamlets as asterisks. (Redrawn from the OS map of Swaledale 1856-7, original scale

six-inch to the mile (1:10,560))

1 The data for all the indices relating to urban York and Swaledale collected from the decennial censuses and

parish baptismal registers are presented in Appendices 1, 2 and 3.

109

Surname Indices

The maximum population of Swaledale was 7480 people in 1821, representing at that time a

growth in numbers of about 30% since the beginning of the century (Figure 44). The

development of lead mining had stimulated rapid in-migration. The decline in numbers after

mid-century was continuous and severe. Muker lost a quarter of its population in the 1850s,

and Melbecks and Arkengarthdale over a half between 1871 and the turn of the century.2

Figure 44. Total population of Swaledale and surname indices during the nineteenth century

The catastrophic effects of the collapse of the lead mining industry upon families in the dale

are reflected in the surname indices plotted for the total population in the second half of the

nineteenth century (Figure 44). The population declined as the industry collapsed, while the

surname index rose steeply. In fact, the number of surnames fell over time, but

proportionally less than the fall in the number of people. In other words, entire groups of

isonymic people disappeared from the dale (either by migration or extinction), but their loss

2 R. Fieldhouse and B. Jennings, A History of Richmond and Swaledale (1978, Chichester, 2005), p. 231.

110

was overshadowed by isonymic groups who remained.3 Of the 279 surnames in Swaledale

held by household heads in the census of 1841, 134 had gone by 1901.4

The fortunes of kinship families (as defined in the terms of this thesis) are seen in the

surname indices derived from household heads throughout the decennial censuses of the four

individual districts of Swaledale (Figures 45 to 48). As with the indices plotted for the

population as a whole, the linkage exists between the size of the adult population and the

density of kinship heads. A clear relationship exists between the decline in the adult

population and the diminution or migration of kinship heads in all these communities.

In Muker district, the fall in the adult population in the second half of the nineteenth century

was continuous. The population halved over this period. The changes in surname indices

followed this same pattern, but the overall trajectory was reversed. There was no abrupt

change in population, and it is difficult to attribute these persistent trends to economic

depressions or the collapse of individual mines. The gradients of surname index and

population flows were muted, however, in comparison with the other three districts.

3 The surname indices in Figure 44 are derived from the census data of the total population (CSI(T)). A rise in

this index implies a decreased proportion of kinship families in the entire dale’s community. Although rising,

the SI remains low (maximum 10.7 in 1901), however, indicating that kinship families dominated the

community throughout the century despite their dwindling numbers. Surname indices of the Swaledale

populations are lower than the corresponding indices of the populations of Holgate and Walmgate in York

because there were fewer surnames relative to the number of people. The surname indices in Figures 45 to 48

are derived from the census data of household heads (CSI(H)). The y-axes of these graphs are drawn at the

same scales in all four to allow ease of comparison.

4 There were 279 surnames in the Swaledale census of 1841, and 206 in the census of 1901, ie there was a net

fall of 73 surnames (or 26%). Of the 279 surnames present in the census of 1841, 145 remained in 1901; there

were 61 surnames present in the census of 1901 that had not been present in the census of 1841.

111

Figure 45. Adult population and surname indices of Muker

Figure 46. Adult population and surname indices of Melbecks

112

Figure 47. Adult population and surname indices of Arkengarthdale

Figure 48. Adult population and surname indices of Reeth

In Melbecks and Arkengarthdale districts, on the other hand, the adult populations declined

gradually until the 1870s, and then began a precipitous fall. At the same time the surname

indices altered course. In Reeth district, this pattern was repeated but over a different

timescale. The adult population of Reeth began its decline after 1851, and at the same time

the surname index derived from household heads rose steeply. In these dwindling

communities entire groups of heads of household with the same surname (or kinship families)

disappeared from all four districts of the dale during the second half of the nineteenth

century. The number of surnames of these heads tended to fall over time at a slower rate than

the decline in the total number of heads. In other words, the size of these groups of isonymic

113

heads became relatively smaller as the century progressed. Put more succinctly, it was the

relatively large kinship families that tended progressively to depart from the dale.

The plots of the population of the four districts of Swaledale against the number of

households in the communities show that the steady decline in the population size in all these

areas is attributable to a matching decline in the number of households (Figure 49).

Figure 49. Total populations and number of households in the four districts of Swaledale

However, the mean household size of the remaining families in all four districts also fell in

line with the declining population size (Figures 50 to 53).5 The number of adults in these

households remained more or less constant throughout the second half of the century, and the

declining household size was caused by a fall in all four districts in the number of children

living in the households.

5 The number of households in a population, the mean household size (MHS) and average number of adults

(APH) and children (CPH) per household are calculated from the data used to produce surname indices (see

Chapter 2).

114

Figure 50. Total population, mean household size, and average number of adults and

children per household in Muker


children per household in Melbecks


children per household in Arkengarthdale

115


children per household in Reeth

In the light of these data and trends, it is possible to speculate on the fate of kinship families

in the dale as the population fell during the mining collapse. The declining population may

be accounted for by migration, reduced fertility, or excess mortality, or a combination of

these factors. Some migration of entire families of the same shared surname across

Swaledale, coupled with a fall in the birth rate of those families that chose to remain, would

be one explanations of the findings. Most of the out-migration occurred in the period 1880 –

83, a decade or two after the surname index began to rise.6 An alternative explanation of

kinship decline therefore is that diminished fertility reduced family sizes and the number of

potential kinship family household heads in the succeeding generations. How the exodus or

stagnation of families affected community in the dale is explored in the final two chapters of

this thesis.

Fathers’ Surname Indices

Fathers’ surname indices provide an assessment of men who fathered children that were

related by kin. These indices calculated from the surviving baptismal records of some

Anglican and Nonconformist churches in Swaledale are shown in Appendix 2 and Figures 54

to 57, and the average number of baptisms per father calculated from these data is shown in

Figure 58.

6 Fieldhouse and Jennings, History of Richmond and Swaledale, p. 231.

116

There tend to be inverse correlations between the number of fathers and the fathers’ surname

indices in all the Anglican and Nonconformist registers, but the nature of that inverse

relationship varies. In the Anglican Churches of Muker, Arkengarthdale and Grinton, the

number of fathers remaining in the dale fell over most of the time periods, but the fathers’

surname indices rose. This implies that fathers were drawn increasingly from a diminishing

number or sizes of kinship (or isonymic) families. On the other hand, in the two

Nonconformist congregations of Reeth, the fathers’ surname indices fell over most of the

century while the number of fathers rose, suggesting that the expanding number of fathers

came increasingly from larger or more numerous kinship (or isonymic) families.

Furthermore, the index in each of these congregations was about the same value (50) around

the year 1861. In other words, the number of fathers in each cultural group was roughly the

same at this time in relation to the number of surnames of fathers. There was then no clear

difference in this behavioural characteristic of Anglican or Nonconformist fathers related by

kin. However, the indices in these two religious groups were moving in different directions

at that time, and there is some evidence of an evolving cultural distinction (or fertility

difference) between denominations. Religious belief or conviction may have influenced

sexual activity between fertile couples.

The average number of baptisms per father also show a variable pattern in these

congregations. Baptisms per father tended to decrease in the first half of the century and

increase in the second half in the registers of Arkengarthdale, Grinton and Reeth, and the

converse seems to have occurred in the register of Muker.

Figure 54. Number of fathers and fathers’ surname indices of St Mary Church, Muker

117

Figure 55. Number of fathers and fathers’ surname indices of St Mary Langthwaite,

Arkengarthdale

Figure 56. Number of fathers and fathers’ surname indices of St Andrews Church, Grinton

118

Figure 57. Number of fathers and fathers’ surname indices of Reeth Congregational Church,

and Reeth Wesleyan Methodists Church

Figure 58. Average number of baptisms per father in Swaledale parishes

Memorial Surname Indices

Memorial surname indices provide an assessment of the memorialisation of people in a

graveyard that were related by kin. These indices were derived from the names of people

engraved on the surviving gravestones of the three Anglican churchyards and two of the

Nonconformist chapels of Upper Swaledale.7 The surnames and forenames of all adults and

7 The memorial inscriptions were transcribed by members of the Cleveland, North Yorkshire and South Durham

Family History Society in the 1970s to the 1990s and published on CD, from which the surname indices have

been calculated. The legible names of all people on surviving gravestones in the graveyards whose deaths are

119

children who had died in the nineteenth century and whose names were legible on these

stones were taken from transcripts. The index relates the number of surnames divided by the

number of people, and as with other indices calculated in this thesis, gives a measure of the

density of kinship (or isonymic) families buried in the churchyard. The lower the index

recorded, the greater is the density of shared surnames or kinship families.8

The details of these inscriptions and the surname indices are shown in Table 6 and Figure 59

below.

Anglican Churches Nonconformist Chapels

St Andrew

Grinton

St Mary

Langthwaite

St Mary

Muker

Wesleyan

Methodist

Chapel

Gunnerside

Low Row

Wesleyan

Methodist

Chapel

Memorial Surname

Index

18.8 22.3 18 22.4 25.7

Number of surnames 74 56 51 39 29

Number of people

memorialised

393 251 283 174 113

Total number of

legible gravestones

144 98 102 73 44

Commonest

memorialised

surname

Alderson

21; White

21

Alderson 22 Alderson 51 Woodward 12 Spensley 19

Number of stones

bearing commonest

surname

Alderson 9;

White 4

Alderson 9 Alderson 18 Woodward 4 Spensley 8

Table 6. Memorial surname indices and inscription data of gravestones in Swaledale

memorialised between 1800 and 1900 were used. Inscriptions recorded within the churches or chapels

themselves were not used. The three Anglican churches are St Mary, Langthwaite in Arkengarthdale, St

Andrew, Grinton in Reeth, and St Mary, Muker. The two nonconformist chapels are the Wesleyan Methodist

Chapel, Gunnerside in Melbecks and the Wesleyan Methodist Chapel, Low Row in Melbecks. Other

graveyards in the dale were not included because they contained very few surviving stones from the nineteenth

century, namely Arkletown (which was abandoned when a landslide removed the church), Holy Trinity in

Melbecks, Keld Independent Chapel in Muker, and Reeth Congregational Chapel.

8 The theoretical objections to memorial surname indices, and the justification for including them in this thesis,

are outlined in Chapter 2.

120

Figure 59. Memorial surname indices of gravestones in Swaledale

The graveyards of the Anglican churches in Swaledale in the nineteenth century were larger

than the Nonconformist graveyards. Just as was found in the rural parishes of Bolton Percy

and Poppleton in Chapter 2 of this thesis, there is also a clear inverse correlation between

surname indices and the size of these graveyards. In other words, the larger the graveyard,

the lower is the surname index of the memorial inscriptions and the greater is the density of

kinship family surnames. Whether these kinship families had Anglican or Nonconformist

leanings, they tended to bury their dead in the larger Anglican churchyards. The Alderson

family, the most numerous family in Swaledale both at the start and end of the period of

study, were also the most numerous in the Anglican burial grounds. On the other hand, the

two families memorialised most commonly in the Nonconformist graveyards, the Woodward

and the Spensley families, do not appear high in the order of large kinship families in

nineteenth-century Swaledale.9 As with the divergent attitudes or behaviour of fathers related

by surname or kinship seen with the fathers’ surname indices, so there was a cultural or

religious difference in the manner in which Anglicans or Nonconformists in Swaledale

remembered their dead.

Kinship Families

The histories of five of the largest nineteenth-century kinship families of Swaledale, the

Alderson, Harker, Metcalfe, Peacock and Raw families, are detailed in this section, in an

9 The Spensley family were said to be John Wesley's hosts during his visits to the dales: E. Cooper, Muker: The

Story of a Yorkshire Parish (Clapham, 1948), p. 42. The prominence of this family was also noted by Speight:

H. Speight, Romantic Richmondshire (London, 1897), p. 270.

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

Surn

ame

Index

Number of people memorialised

St Andrew Grinton

St Mary

Langthwaite

St Mary Muker

Wesleyan Methodist

Chapel Gunnerside

Low Row Wesleyan

Methodist Chapel

121

attempt to show how their trajectories differed from each other and varied between the

districts of Muker, Melbecks, Arkengarthdale and Reeth.10

Figure 60. The four districts, villages, River Swale and main mines in Upper Swaledale

Mines: BH – Beldi Hill; S – Swinnergill; L/B – Lownathwaite/Blakethwaite; OG/S – Old

Gang/Surrender; A – Arkengarthdale. Lines in mining areas denote major veins or levels and

small asterisks denote smelt mills. (Redrawn from the OS map of Swaledale 1856-7, original

magnification six-inch to the mile (1:10,560))

The Swaledale lead mines (Figure 60) enjoyed great prosperity in the mid-nineteenth century,

succeeded by a severe depression, decline then extinction of the industry in the early years of

the twentieth century. The most profitable and resilient mine, the Old Gang, was developed

10 All five of these families were present in Upper Swaledale in preceding centuries also. See for example North

Yorkshire C.R.O., Swaledale Manor records ZA (MIC 144-9, 166-7, 998, 1007-9, 1046, 2476). Aldersons were

noted by Whitaker in 1823 (T.D. Whitaker, An History of Richmondshire (London, 1823), p. 310), and the

derivation of the name Harker from Harkaside near Reeth by Speight in 1897 (Speight, Romantic

Richmondshire, pp. 250 & 271).

122

by the Pomfret-Denys family, and the rest let off to lessees.11 Two entrepreneurial London

lead merchants, George and Thomas Alderson, bought the lease of the Old Gang mine in

Melbecks district in 1811.12 For a time this venture was successful. New developments

proved to be an excessive drain on capital, however, and the Aldersons gave up the lease of

the Old Gang mine in 1828. The Jacques family bought the lease and reaped the benefit of

the former owners’ significant investment. The mine made handsome profits until 1874.

The men who extracted the ore from Swaledale mines came originally from farming families,

and their involvement in the industry eventually overshadowed agriculture. Swaledale

farmers in the middle of the seventeenth century began to engage in part-time mining, and

within the next century their descendants were miners who engaged in part-time farming.13

Those farming communities within which lead mines were opened were transformed into

communities of miners, many of whom held small plots of land. Hallas has catalogued these

changes in the economy of the Pennine dales.14 She has shown that the Melbecks and

Arkengarthdale regions of Swaledale experienced a considerable influx of migrants at the end

of the eighteenth century and in the first decade of the nineteenth. Those miners already

established when the immigrants arrived retained their smallholdings. However, most of the

immigrants would have been unable to rent a holding of land. The Yorkshire lead mining

area experienced an increase in population of about 30% between 1801 and 1821. In

Arkengarthdale, the population increase of 30% between 1801 and 1811 is attributed to an

influx of mineworkers from the agricultural districts of the North Riding and South Durham.

About one half of the workforce in Swaledale was employed by the lead mining industry in

1851. This proportion fell progressively and was about 20% in 1891 by which time Hallas

argues that agriculture had once again become the largest employment.

11 Leases were first taken out around the start of the nineteenth century by partnerships in Wensleydale,

Newcastle, Stockton and London: Surrender mine in 1792, the Arkengarthdale field in 1800, Swinnergill mine

in 1804, Beldi Hill in 1808, Blakethwaite in 1806 and Lownathwaite in 1812 (Fieldhouse and Jennings, History

of Richmond and Swaledale, pp. 207-208).

12A. Raistrick and B. Jennings, A History of Lead Mining in the Pennines (London, 1965), pp. 257-264 and 206.

13 Raistrick and Jennings, A History of Lead Mining, pp. 311–324.


21-23. Hallas lists 1343 employees in Swaledale in the ‘extractive’ industries (lead, coal and quarrying

industries), or 49.4% of the workforce, in 1851; and 289 or 22.2% workers respectively in 1891. Corresponding

figures for agricultural workers were 531 (19.5%) in 1851 and 660 (50.7%) in 1891.

123

The population trends in Swaledale reflect the people's reliance upon, and balance between,

the lead mining industry and farming. In the early years of the nineteenth century, the

greatest growth in population occurred in townships with a substantial lead industry;

similarly, the most severe losses in the second half of the century occurred in those townships

where the lead industry had been most influential. The population changes thus varied

considerably between townships. The entire dale suffered severe difficulties following the

near total collapse of its lead industry towards the end of the nineteenth century, and a

proportion of the population left the dale. It was the strength of its underlying agricultural

base, Hallas maintains, which enabled the economy to survive.15

These changes in population affected kinship families across the dale. As the population fell

precipitously after 1861, so the surname index rose steeply and progressively. This rise in the

index implies a rise in the number of surnames relative to the size of the population, or a rise

in the density of smaller families with few isonymic heads of household. Small families grew

as the lead-mining industry collapsed in the second half of the nineteenth century and at the

expense of larger kinship families. The surname indices of the period show, in other words,

that larger kinship families became depleted over this period. This fall in their concentration

arose presumably either because they migrated in preference to smaller families, or they

experienced reduced fertility, or a combination of the two. It is possible to look in more

detail at the movement within and from the dale of these kinship families by a simple count

of the household heads of any particular surname at each of the decennial censuses. Having

identified the household heads of the family by forename, the genealogical descent of

individual household heads and their occupations by district of residence in Swaledale can be

confirmed and plotted.

Counts of household heads of Swaledale kinship families are presented in Appendix 11. This

shows the list of Swaledale families with the greatest overall changes in number between

1841 and 1901, tabulated as the number of household heads in each family taken from the

census returns. There were 16 families with a decline of at least ten household heads, and 11

families with a growth of at most four heads. The fall in the number of households of these

16 largest kinship families in Swaledale was constant and relentless, notably by more than a

15 Hallas, Rural Responses to Industrialization, p. 44. This author concludes that it was the diversity of

occupations within the rural economy of Swaledale, with resilient supporting crafts and services, that enabled

the community to survive the collapse of its lead industry. See also: C. Hallas, ‘Craft occupations in the late

nineteenth century: Some local considerations’, Local Population Studies, 44 (1990), pp. 22 – 28.

124

half in the second half of the century from about 450 in 1841. Families that endeavoured to

grow in size despite the overall downturn in the population are presented in Chapter 5.

The kinship families of Swaledale chosen for more detailed study are those 5 kinship families

which showed the greatest decline in numbers of household heads between 1841 and 1901

(Table 7):

Table 7. Swaledale kinship families with the greatest decline in household head numbers

This particular group of families is examined with reference to their mining histories, farming

and landholding patterns. Their histories are detailed prospectively from the nineteenth

century from censuses, land surveys, mining company histories, wills, and retrospectively to

an extent from histories compiled by living descendants of these families. The occupations

of household heads taken from the census returns are those transcribed by the enumerator as

lead miner (or allied job), farmer (or allied job), or a combination of the two. This represents

an oversimplification, since heads who gave their occupation as miner probably also farmed

to an extent, and vice versa.16 Figure 61 shows the changes in number of household heads of

these families who were engaged in mining both in total and in the individual districts, and

Figure 62 shows the changes in mining household head numbers of the five individual

families.

16 Dual occupations, the decline of the lead mines, the farming year, and the homesickness of emigration are

depicted in Armstrong’s novel set in nineteenth-century Swaledale, T. Armstrong, Adam Brunskill (London,

1952). ‘The leadminers … were expert with the scythe and regarded haymaking as a period of holiday … This

outlook altered gradually with the decline of the major industry until the time came when [they] eagerly

anticipated haymaking …’ (Armstrong, Adam Brunskill, p. 174). The isolation of life in post-industrial

Swaledale is depicted in D. Garnett (ed.), The White/Garnett Letters (London, 1968), pp. 211 – 220.

Surname Total Heads 1841 Total Heads 1901 Change 1841 to 1901 % Decline 1841 to 1901

Alderson 80 45 -35 44%

Harker 49 20 -29 59%

Metcalfe 45 20 -25 56%

Peacock 48 26 -22 46%

Raw 32 10 -22 69%

125

Figure 61. Combined numbers of mining household heads of 5 families in Swaledale

districts between 1841 and 1901.

Figure 62. Numbers of mining household heads of 5 individual families in Swaledale

between 1841 and 1901.

From a total of 112 household heads employed in mining in 1841, the collapse of the industry

in these families was almost total by 1901. Melbecks and Arkengarthdale had a significantly

larger number of mining households than Reeth or Muker districts at the start of the period.

The slowest rate of collapse in the industry in these kinship families occurred in Melbecks,

and the collapse occurred earlier in Arkengarthdale and Muker than in the other two districts.

Indeed in Reeth there was initial growth in the number of mining households until 1861, after

which the collapse was complete within the next 30 years. With regard to the individual

mining families, the decline in the Alderson household head numbers was relentless over the

half century. The Metcalfe miners were resistant to collapse until the 1860s. With the

126

exception of the Aldersons, these families showed some resurgence in mining in the 1860s

and 1870s, but thereafter the downturn was steep as the mines entered their terminal phase.

The fortunes of these five families were more buoyant in the dale in the agricultural

economy. The numbers of their farming heads of household are shown combined in the

districts and individually across the entire dale in Figures 63, 64 and 65.

Figure 63. Combined numbers of farming household heads of 5 families in Swaledale

districts between 1841 and 1901.

Figure 64. Numbers of farming household heads of 4 individual families in Swaledale

between 1841 and 1901.

127

Figure 65. Numbers of farming household heads of the Harker family in Swaledale between

1841 and 1901.

Few men of these families farmed in Arkengarthdale in this period. All of the other three

districts, however, showed an increase in the number of farming household heads between

1841 and 1901, albeit with some fluctuations in numbers over the decades. There was a

general slump in the number of farming households of these kinship families across the dale

in the 1850s and 1880s, but a growth in their numbers in the other four decades of the second

half of this century. These trends reflect the fortunes of four of the five chosen kinship

farming families, namely the Alderson, Metcalfe, Peacock and Raw families. The remaining

family, the Harkers, showed a largely static number of farming heads of household across the

half century.

The fates of these mining and farming families across Swaledale as a whole and their

individual trajectories in the four separate districts are detailed now. Some distinct patterns

and distinctions become apparent. The plots of three of these families, namely the Aldersons,

Harkers and Metcalfes, are presented in Appendices 12, 13 and 14. These show the family

members, their dates and places of birth, and their residence and occupation at each of the

censuses. The plots of total number of heads of household of each of the five families, and

the number of men employed in farming and lead mining at each census year and in each

district, are summarised and plotted in Appendix 15. Illustrative examples of these plots are

also included in this chapter.

128

The drain of kinship families was gradual but sustained from Muker district. There was no

abrupt exodus from any point in time. Farming was quite clearly the mainstay of the

economy in this district. The leases of the Swinnergill, Lownathwaite and Blakethwaite

mines ran until 1867 and work stopped in 1861.17 Mining households largely disappeared

after this year, but farming households persisted in all five families until at least the turn of

the twentieth century. Two patterns emerge in farming families in Muker, namely one of

stability in the number of farmers in the families across the period, and the other of growth in

number (defined as a higher peak in the final quarter of the century than in the third). The

Alderson and Peacock farmers showed some growth in Muker, although the Aldersons

always outnumbered the Peacocks. This district was the only region of the dale in which the

Alderson economic survival was dominated by farming (Figure 66). Muker, the furthest

reach of the upper dale and the most isolated, housed about half of the total Alderson family

of the whole dale in 1841. Half of the Alderson heads of Muker were farmers and/or

landowners at that time, and only about a quarter were employed in the lead mining industry.

None of the heads of Alderson families of 1841 chose to move their household to any other

district of Swaledale for the remainder of their lives. In fact, the majority of these farmers in

Muker continued to survive from agriculture for at least ten years after 1841, and some

continued to farm until well into the second half of the nineteenth century. One Muker

farmer, John Alderson of Thorns born in 1816 in the hamlet of Keld, remained as a head of

household in his occupation in 1841 for the longest period of time of any Alderson in

Swaledale, initially as a landowner farming in excess of 100 acres.18 Throughout this period

in Muker, the numbers engaged in farming remained high and peaked in the last quarter of

the century. The lead mining community, by contrast, collapsed in this district after 1841.

Only two lead miners survived in the industry as a head of household until the next census,

and a further two combined mining with farming for a time before becoming full-time

farmers.19 Those men engaged in the lead mining industry fell in number rapidly between

17 Fieldhouse and Jennings, History of Richmond and Swaledale, pp. 220-222.

18 The life of the fourth child of John and Mary Alderson, Elizabeth, is described in Those Who Left the Dales

(E. Peacock and Y. Alderson, ‘Elizabeth Alderson from Swaledale to the homes of the nobility and finally back

to Muker’, in Marriott, Those Who Left the Dales, p. 70. She entered into high domestic service, in the

employments of the Countess of Sandwich in Huntingdon, the Duke of Beaufort in Badminton, and Lord Derby

at Knowsley Hall in Lancashire. She returned to Muker churchyard for burial.

19 The proportion of the workforce in Swaledale with a dual occupation varied between censuses, but more than

doubled between 1851 and 1891 (Hallas, Rural Responses to Industrialization, p. 43). This reached a peak of

181 mine workers in agriculture in 1871, when 117 miners recorded a second occupation in farming. Very few

129

1841 and 1871, after which Alderson lead mining families existed no more in Muker. Their

demise predated the growth in farming, albeit not enough to halt the overall decline in the

Alderson family. The Peacock family similarly showed some growth in farming households

in Muker in the final quarter of the century, although even their peak number of farmers in

Muker in 1881 was lower than the smallest number of Alderson farmers at any census.

Figure 66. Occupations of Alderson household heads in Muker district

Three families, namely Harker, Metcalfe and Raw, showed some stability in farming across

the period. The Harker family, although always fewer in number than their Alderson

neighbours in Muker, showed the same attachment to the land (Figure 67). Whereas the

Aldersons declined in number, however, the pool of Harker heads of household remained

more or less the same. Lead-mining Harker families disappeared too, and Harker farmers

maintained their constant number. Several Harker families maintained their lineage

throughout the remainder of the century, and their plots may throw light on inheritance

practices in Muker and social mobility. In these families one son often continued as head of a

farming household when the parent had died or relinquished their hold of a farm. David

Harker (born in 1817) continued his mother’s line in farming and diversified for a time into

innkeeping and lead mining. He retired as a farmer, two of his sons following his occupation

but only one after the other. William (born in 1805) survived as a lead miner and farmer, his

widow maintaining a farm for at least twenty years after his death. Their son took over the

Alderson households in the dale in 1841 subsequently combined farming and lead mining, the majority of

household heads that remained in further censuses subsisting from their original occupation.

130

farm only after his widowed mother was no longer farming. James Harker, born in 1831 and

a colliery agent and farmer, had three sons who followed his occupations, one of whom

acquired his own farming household only in his father’s old age and another only after his

father had lost his hold of the family or died. Fragmentary and inconclusive though the

evidence is, possibly primogeniture was the mode of inheritance in the Harker family farmers

of Muker at this time. The Metcalfe and Raw families also showed this stability in farming

households in this district, the Metcalfe farmers equating with the number of Harker farmers

while the Raws maintained a constant but low presence.

Figure 67. Occupations of Harker household heads in Muker district

The surname indices show that in Melbecks and Arkengarthdale districts, the adult

populations declined gradually until the 1870s, after which the depletion of the larger kinship

families began. Lead mining was the backbone of the local economy in the district of

Melbecks, the site of the Surrender and Old Gang mines.20 The Surrender mine north of Old

Gang, even though its production costs were high due to its siting on a high plateau, lay in

ore-rich ground and made handsome profits from 1843 to 1859. The company gave up its

lease in 1868. The mine best able to ride out depressions was the Old Gang. This mine

remained in profit from 1867 until the mid-1870s, but then fell into debt by the early 1880s.

A resurgence of the Old Gang formed in 1889 failed to make any new discoveries and it went

into liquidation in 1906.

20 Fieldhouse and Jennings, History of Richmond and Swaledale, pp. 216 – 226.

131

Mining overshadowed farming in Melbecks. Two patterns of mining households emerge

again in the five largest kinship families in the dale. The dominant pattern is seen in four of

the families (namely Alderson, Harker, Metcalfe and Raw), in which there was a stable

number of miners until 1861 or thereabouts, after which the numbers fell away. Whilst the

Aldersons and Harkers both followed this pattern, they show an interesting contrast after the

mine began to fail (Figures 68 and 69). The overall numbers of these two family heads in

Melbecks district were similar in scale, but their tendencies to remain in the dale or dissipate

appear to be polar opposites. Farming households account for this difference. As the total

adult population fell over the second half of the nineteenth century, the number of Alderson

households rose and the number of Harker households fell in Melbecks. Farming before the

collapse of the local lead mine in Melbecks occupied one Alderson household. With the

decline of the mining community, Aldersons increasingly supported their families from the

land, but the slow demise of mining Harker families in this district was not compensated by

farming. Some Harker families after 1871 farmed the land or combined this with lead

mining, but the fall in Harker numbers continued. In fact, of the five branches of the Harker

family occupied in lead mining in Melbecks in 1871, seven members or their offspring

diversified into farming but of these, four farmed further up the dale in Muker. Melbecks

also did not show the same stability of Alderson families as was seen in Muker. Whereas

most of the heads of Alderson households in Muker survived in the dale for at least another

ten years after the census of 1841, including the lead miners, none of the Melbecks lead

miners’ households of 1841 was still there in 1851. In conclusion the Aldersons in Melbecks

were able to diversify into farming after the Old Gang mine failed, but the Harkers could not

(Figure 70).21 Individual long-standing Harker family mining households may have

experienced inflexibility or inexperience in switching to agriculture. Perhaps landowning

patterns, inheritance practices or family structures adopted by the Aldersons gave them this

resilience or persistence.

21 Photograph courtesy of Masham Photographic Club

132

Figure 68. Occupations of Alderson household heads in Melbecks district

Figure 69. Occupations of Harker household heads in Melbecks district

133

Figure 70. Ruins of the Old Gang Smelt Mill, Melbecks Moor

The Metcalfe and Raw families showed the same early stability in mining households in

Melbecks followed by a decline. The Peacock family, however, bucked the trend of their

neighbours in this district. While neighbouring kinship mining families went into decline in

the third quarter of the century, the Peacock miners actually grew in number, reaching their

peak in 1871 (Figure 71).

Figure 71. Occupations of Peacock household heads in Melbecks district

There are differences again in the fate of these families in Arkengarthdale, the most rugged

and inhospitable terrain of the four districts of Swaledale. As in neighbouring Melbecks, the

mainstay of the local economy was the mining industry. These mines fared better than mines

elsewhere in Swaledale after 1870, when valuable new discoveries were made in

134

Arkengarthdale. Output faltered after the mid-1880s.22 Patterns also emerge within and

between the fortunes of the local families. Two families, the Metcalfes and the Raws, had no

real presence in Arkengarthdale. The numbers of mining households of the other three

families fell progressively over the second half of the century, albeit with the occasional

decade of growth. The decline in Alderson households here was steep and prolonged,

occasioned by a relentless fall in the number of lead-mining households and a somewhat

more stuttering decline in farming households (Figure 72). The Aldersons in this region

faced near extinction by 1901. Their decline in number was more rapid than the depopulation

of the whole community until 1881, after which they both plummeted. The Alderson

households in Arkengarthdale were dominated by lead mining in 1841, but most of them had

left the dale within the next decade. Very few lead-mining Alderson household heads

survived in Arkengarthdale into the 1850s. Thereafter one miner combined his living with

farming, and two took their trade lower down the dale into Reeth well into the second half of

the nineteenth century. One remarkable lead miner, Christopher Alderson, worked into his

70s throughout the collapse in the industry, taking his household between Arkengarthdale and

Reeth. The fate of the Peacock lead miners paralleled that of the Aldersons in the district,

with some resurgence of its farming community towards the turn of the next century.23

Figure 72. Occupations of Alderson household heads in Arkengarthdale district


23 The Peacock family was said to be an ‘intellectual’ family that had no wish to be involved in mining

(Marriott, Those Who Left the Dales, p. 174). Rees also noted that kin groups in a Welsh parish could have their

collective vices and virtues (A.D. Rees, Life in a Welsh Countryside: A Social Study of Llanfihangel yng

Ngwynfa (Cardiff, 1951), p. 78).

135

The Harker family in Arkengarthdale experienced the same precipitous fall in their number as

the Aldersons in the third quarter of the century, again due largely to the departure of lead

miners (Figure 73). The Harker decline began at least 20 years later than the Aldersons,

however, and came to a halt in the final years of the century. The survival of some farmers

and lead miners avoided the terminal decline seen with the Aldersons. The lead miners who

worked through the final stages of mining in Arkengarthdale were invariably long-established

miners or their sons. These included George and James Harker, brothers and descendants of

a line of local miners, and George and Thomas Harker, both miner’s sons. Arkengarthdale’s

Harker farmers had a slightly more varied background. Two had mining roots, but three

others came from farming stock in Reeth. The arrivals from Reeth in 1901 comprised a 50

year old newcomer and a son and father who had emigrated from a farm there 40 years

earlier.

Figure 73. Occupations of Harker household heads in Arkengarthdale district

Reeth is the most easterly of the four districts of Upper Swaledale. This was a district of

relatively few mines and of lowland pasture. Here there was a mixed economy of industry

and agriculture. The Grinton mines were productive during the first half of the nineteenth

century.24 Once again some patterns emerge in the fortunes of the five kinship families. A

couple of the families showed a growth followed by a slump in the number of mining heads

of household, while the other three showed only a drop in their number over the half century.

Similarly most of these families enjoyed a rise then a drop in the number of farmers. Only


136

one family, the Peacocks, showed a slight but steady growth in the number of farming heads

of household by the turn of the twentieth century.

The number of Alderson households in Reeth declined overall across the period, but with two

peaks in 1861 and 1881 (Figure 74). The peak of 1861 was caused by the growth of lead-

mining households, after which these families declined. The second peak in the Alderson

fortunes followed the progressive growth of farming households, after which there was a

similar decline. Most of the Aldersons in Reeth in 1841 were engaged in neither farming nor

the lead-mining industry, instead servicing the needs of a small community. Such

occupations included butchers, labourers, a carrier, a gamekeeper, a tailor, a sawyer and the

workhouse master. A couple of lead-mining Alderson heads of household left the industry

within the decade after 1841, but some others continued in the mines into the second half of

the century. Likewise two farmers in 1841 remained on the land for at least another decade,

to be joined by a former carrier, butcher and gamekeeper. Unlike other districts of the upper

dale, some Alderson heads left Reeth for a time but tended to return in later life. The pattern

in the numbers of lead-mining and farming households of the Peacock family matched that of

the Aldersons (Figure 75), but with the notable absence of the peak in 1861. The summit in

households in 1881 in both families followed an expansion in the number of farmers.

Figure 74. Occupations of Alderson household heads in Reeth district

137

Figure 75. Occupations of Peacock household heads in Reeth district

The Harkers, a family second in size across the dale as a whole only to the Aldersons at the

start of the period, tended not to inhabit Reeth. Very few of them worked the mines there.

Others were farmers. Although always fewer in number than the Aldersons, their patterns of

growth then decline were similar. Harker farmers began to fail 20 years before the Aldersons

in Reeth and they had all departed by the final ten years or so of the nineteenth century. Only

one of the Reeth farmers of 1861 was also a landowner, and her son was the only offspring

who continued to farm for any length of time in Swaledale. The other Harker farmers of

1861 were either new arrivals or longer standing, and only one was a former miner in Reeth.

*

This chapter has looked in quite some detail at the histories of the largest kinship families in

Swaledale over the course of the nineteenth century, in other words those families with the

most household heads at mid-century. Some patterns have emerged and it is possible to draw

some broad conclusions. As the population of the entire dale dropped, it was the large

kinship families of the community that declined preferentially with the rural exodus. The

largest kinship families dwindled in size and/or chose, or were obliged, to leave. The smaller

families tended to remain in the dale. The demographics of these large kinship families

differed in the various districts of the dale and between each other. Farming dominated the

economy in Muker. The large kinship families here showed stability or growth in number of

household heads. The slow steady decline in population in Muker district can be attributed to

this dependence on agriculture, in contrast to the more pronounced precipitous depopulation

in districts reliant on the fortunes of failing mines. Similarly the rising birth-rate in Muker in

the first half of the century may reflect parental optimism in farming. Lead mining

138

predominated in Melbecks and Arkengarthdale. The majority of the studied lead-mining

kinship families in Melbecks fell in numbers after a period of stability until 1861, but in

Arkengarthdale mining kinship families declined progressively. Neither mining nor farming

held sway in Reeth. Some kinship families enjoyed a boom in both industries in this district,

but followed by a slump, while some witnessed only a steady decline in their mining

fortunes.

It is possible to speculate further on the factors behind these demographic changes, and on

their effects. Lead mining collapsed in Swaledale over the course of the century for the

reasons that many extractive industries tend to fail: exhaustion of its seams, and competition.

As employment in the mines diminished, some families may have had the opportunity, or felt

the economic pressure, to move into farming or increase the sizes of their farms. On the

other hand, men with little or no land may have been forced to emigrate. Migration to other

industrial areas of England or overseas accounts for at least some of the population decline in

the dale, the dispersal of kin family members to a more prosperous future attracting further

waves of family left behind. Falling family size may have produced a similar effect on the

rural population. Deindustrialisation and/or the agricultural slump may have depressed

fertility, depleting the number of offspring available or able to head households, even

rendering some families extinct, and allowing the influx of new isolated families into the

economy.25

Migrant families came from many different strata of Swaledale society, and they left for

different places and for different reasons. Many more migrated to other parts of Britain than

overseas.26 Favoured destinations were Lancashire, the West Riding of Yorkshire, and the

coalmining areas of the North East. There was a strong tradition of currents of migration

between the coal- and lead-mining regions of the dales and the Durham fields, the

movements fluctuating with the fortunes of each industry. Brierfield near Burnley in

Lancashire attracted Swaledale migrants in particular. The number of dales-people living in

Brierfield increased from 62 to 248 between 1851 and 1871, where migrants tended to settle

even in the same streets. A review of the parish of Little Marsden in Brierfield in the census

25 Bogg on his tour of Swaledale in the early twentieth century noted that …‘Today the population of the

countryside answers to not many more than a dozen or two names.’ (E. Bogg, Richmondshire: An Account of its

History and Antiquities, Characters and Customs, Legendary Lore, and Natural History (Leeds, 1908), p.216.)

26 Hallas, Rural Responses to Industrialization, pp. 265 - 294.

139

of 1871 shows that 27 of 197 households were headed by men born in Swaledale. Of these

27 heads of household, 11 were offspring of the Alderson, Harker, Metcalfe and Peacock

families studied in this thesis. Most were concentrated in three streets in the town, and they

were almost exclusively coal miners. Migration to this part of Lancashire gained pace in the

1880s and 1890s. Emigrants from Swaledale sailed particularly for Dubuque on the

Mississippi River in Iowa, attracted by the lead ore, profitable farming opportunities, and

favourably low prices of land, livestock and provisions.27 The boom in mining in Dubuque

was from 1835 to 1849. Immigrant families became integrated over a wide area of the

mining and farming country and individual families, notably the Harker, Peacock and Raw

families, developed their own specific areas of land.28 These newcomers enjoyed political

equality and the opportunity of a better life than in their native land.29

*

The vagaries of the lead-mining industry in the four districts of Swaledale, landholding

patterns and inheritance practices therefore probably go quite some way to explain kinship

family trajectories, as may individual family structures and fertility. The nineteenth century

produced marked changes in the mix of families inhabiting the dale. Rural depopulation

clearly reduced the size of the kin component of the community left behind. The notion of

kinship, however, is much more than family ties that lend themselves to simple arithmetic,

and these profound demographic changes raise other interesting questions. Did, for example,

depopulation diminish or minimize kin (and core) family presence? Or indeed did it

strengthen or enhance their status in the community? These possibilities, together with the

effects of migration of families into the communities in York, are explored in Chapters 6 and

7.


152 and 157.

28 These Swaledale names appear also in the list of burials at the Leadmine Primitive Methodist Church

Cemetery, New Diggings, Lafayette County, Wisconsin (Marriott, Those Who Left the Dales, p. 76).

29 D. Morris, The Dalesmen of the Mississippi River (York, 1989). A map on p. 90 shows the Fever River, a

tributary of The Mississippi, with the names of these settlers and the areas in which they developed their own

land.

140

Before these questions are addressed, however, the thesis turns to the comparison between

the migrant families of York and Swaledale, beginning with some aspects of migration in

different age groups or cohorts of the two populations.

141

Age Cohorts in Migrant Populations

Different cohorts in migrant populations can be tracked across time by means of surname

indices (cohort surname indices). The age cohorts are based in this study on data published

on migration rates in relation to life-course collected from family histories in the period 1850-

1899 by Pooley and Turnbull. Migration according to these authors increased steeply in the

teens and early twenties (17-25) as children left the parental home, remained high for a few

years as marriage, a growing family and new employment prospects stimulated moves, and

then dropped steadily until old age (26-59).30 The cohort surname indices for these age

groups in the six streets in York and in Swaledale are tabulated in Appendix 3 and plotted in

Figures 76, 77 and 78. Figure 76 provides the comparison between the urban and rural

groups, and Figures 77 and 78 show the data for each separately.

Figure 76 shows the cohort surname indices for both York and Swaledale plotted at each

cohort and in the censuses between 1851 and 1901. The surname indices in the Swaledale

populations are consistently less than the indices in the York populations for each cohort

because the number of surnames was always proportionally less than the number of

individuals in Swaledale than in York. An index derived from a young age cohort (children)

tends to be low because several siblings may share the same surname in each nuclear family.

The raised index in the 17-25 year age cohort compared with the 0-16 year age cohort implies

a reduced proportion of isonymic individuals, probably because children had either left the

population or daughters had married and lost their parental surname. The lowered index in

the 26-59 year age cohort compared with the 17-25 year age cohort implies an elevated

proportion of isonymic individuals, probably because of an increased proportion of nuclear

families led by two parents with the same surname. An index derived from an old age cohort

tends to be high because mortality reduces the number of people with shared surnames.

30 C. Pooley and J. Turnbull, Migration and Mobility in Britain since the Eighteenth Century (London, 1998), p.

207.

142

Figure 76. Cohort surname indices derived from York and Swaledale populations between

1851 and 1901

Age Cohorts in York Population

Figure 77. Cohort surname indices derived from populations of streets of Holgate and

Walmgate

143

The surname indices drawn from the total number of people in the different age cohorts in the

six streets of Holgate and Walmgate are consistently lower at the end of the century than at

its mid-point (Figure 77). There was an overall gain in the period in the number of surnames.

There was a relatively larger increase in the number of people, however, indicating that

groups of in-migrants to these streets with the same surname were bigger at the end than at

the beginning of the period.

Age Cohorts in Swaledale Population

Figure 78. Cohort surname indices derived from populations of Swaledale

In contrast with the York populations, the surname indices drawn from the total number of

people in the various age cohorts in Swaledale are consistently higher at the end of the

century than at the beginning of the period (Figure 78). These figures indicate that entire

groups of people with the same surname were lost from the dale, and there was a

progressively larger fall in the number of people in these groups than in the number of

surnames. In other words, the groups of people with the same surname lost from the

population were bigger at the end than at the beginning of the period.

These figures from both York and Swaledale lend support to the idea that people of all ages

with the same surname followed in the wake of each other in chain migration. This pattern of

144

migration into York and out of Swaledale seems to have gathered pace somewhat across the

half century in a wave or tidal flow.

145

Chapter 5

Persistent Families of York and Swaledale

The previous two chapters of this thesis have tracked migrant people with the same surname

over the course of the nineteenth century in York and Swaledale by means of surname

indices, then explored in some detail individual migrants in these communities who shared an

ancestor. The present chapter moves on to look at the demographic characteristics of people

who persisted in their community for a prolonged period of time. In view of the ability to

track people in the same localised neighbourhood only in the urban context, persistence is

defined in different terms in York and Swaledale. In Holgate and Walmgate heads of

household who lived in the same street for a minimum of ten years are examined, but in

Swaledale those isonymic families whose heads of household grew in number over the

second half of the nineteenth century despite rural depopulation are followed.

Holgate

Families had lived along Holgate Road for more than a century before the arrival of the

railway, but the adjacent square and terraces had been built in the 1860s and 1870s to

accommodate the new railway workforce.1 Holgate Road in the nineteenth century

comprised 35 households in the census of 1841. They more than doubled in number in the

next decade and then remained unaltered until the end of the century. There were numerous

terraces along the road, with a few small courts or yards, St Paul’s Church and Rectory, St

Catherine's Hospital for a few poor widows, and also an increasing number of high-status

villas for middle-class residents. The houses of St Paul’s Terrace and Railway Terrace were

completed by 1881, and the houses were more or less fully occupied in this and the following

two censuses. The families of these terraces and their residences showed remarkable

persistence or stability after the street was built. With only one or two exceptions, the entire

workforce whose families stayed in the street were employees of the railway. The majority

of the engine drivers moved into the streets before building was completed. In fact, those

families that arrived when St Paul’s Terrace was first built and were destined to remain,

included about a half of the railway engine drivers that ever lived there until the end of the

century. Of the 27 heads of household who had arrived there by 1871, no less than 11 of

1 C.B. Knight, A History of the City of York (York, 1944), pp. 657 and 668-669.

146

their surnames persisted in censuses of the terrace over the next 30 years. In fact, of the 71

houses in total, 40 were occupied by the same family for at least 10 years at some time in the

last quarter of the nineteenth century.

Some details of these households are shown in Appendices 16 to 19. They show the

household heads of Holgate Road, St Paul’s Terrace, Railway Terrace and St Paul’s Square

as identified in the censuses of 1841 to 1901. A summary of the data in these four

Appendices appears in Table 8. The two figures below (Figures 79 and 80) show the

numbers of isonymic heads of household that remained as such in the same street for at least

a decade. Figure 79 shows the number of isonymic heads in the censuses of 1881 and 1891

that had lived in each street since at least the previous census and/or were destined to live in

the same street until at least the next census, that is to say the number of isonymic heads that

persisted in each neighbourhood for a minimum of ten years.2 Figure 80 shows the number

of these persistent isonymic heads expressed as a percentage of the total number of

households.

Figure 79. Number of persistent isonymic heads of household in Holgate streets in 1881 and

1891

2 The censuses of 1881 and 1891 are the only two censuses between 1841 and 1901 for these four streets for

which data on 10-year persistent isonymic heads can be calculated, since the number of isonymic heads that had

been present for 10 years cannot be identified in the first enumeration for a street and the number of isonymic

heads that were destined to stay for a further 10 years cannot be identified in the enumeration of 1901.

147

Figure 80. Persistent isonymic heads of household in Holgate streets in 1881 and 1891

expressed as percentage of total number of households

In 1881 the number of these persistent surnames was greatest in Holgate Road, with a

progressive fall in their numbers in St Paul’s Terrace, Railway Terrace and St Paul’s Square.

Within a decade by 1891, however, persistent surnames had fallen slightly in number in

Holgate Road but risen in the other three streets. Markedly different numbers of houses

existed in these streets of course, and a somewhat different picture emerges when persistent

surnames are compared with the total number of households. At least half of the isonymic

heads in any street in 1881 were resident for at least a decade, and the proportion was at its

greatest in St Paul’s Terrace. These percentages had risen in each street bar Holgate Road by

1891, predominantly in the working-class railway terraces and most dramatically in Railway

Terrace where nearly 90% of the isonymic heads were persistent. The stability of these

working-class families in the terraces is reinforced further when the data are explored in

detail and the residence of individual heads of household is plotted across the censuses.

About half of the newly-arrived heads in the terraces in 1881 were set to stay for at least a

further ten years, and a similar proportion of the arrivals in 1891 were living in the very same

house ten years later. Indeed about a third of the newcomers in 1881 were in the same house

in St Paul’s Terrace and Railway Terrace for more than 20 years.3 The peak concentration of

long-stay families in the two terraces in 1891 also coincided with the maximum concentration

of kinship family household heads over the last three decades of the century.

3 Number of new persistent heads set to stay for at least 10 years in 1881 in SPT = 28 (44%); in RT = 15 (47%).

Number of new persistent heads set to live in same house for at least a further 10 years in 1891 in SPT = 26

(45%); in RT = 18 (58%). Number of new persistent heads set to live in same house for at least a further 20

years in 1881 in SPT = 22 (34%); in RT = 9 (28%).

148

Interesting differences emerge in the complexion of Holgate families when occupations of

householders are compared between the streets at their first census enumeration of the period

and the heyday of the persistent families in 1891. Most of the heads of household present in

Holgate Road in 1841 had agricultural jobs, such as farmer, wheelwright and cowkeeper.

Few agricultural families arrived within the next ten years, but several skilled artisans and

small businessmen moved into the street and these families were destined to stay. The road

had a rural atmosphere in the 1860s, when there were working water- and wind-mills,

horticultural produce worthy of winning prizes, heaps of manure in the gutters, and

newsworthy petty theft of apples and strawberries from gardens.4 A significant proportion of

the heads of household by 1891, however, were wealthy middle-class men, and few were

employed by the railway. Some, notably engine and carriage builders and track workmen,

were manual workers in this industry but men of higher status in the railway management had

arrived too. Some large residences of the moneyed and business middle classes in Holgate

Road before the coming of the railway became the homes of some high managerial ranks of

the railway workforce. The Holgate Lodge estate, a magnificent villa, was once occupied by

Henry Thompson, uncle of Sir Harry Stephen Meysey-Thompson, chairman of York and

North Midland Railway Company and then chairman of the North Eastern railway. It was

also subsequently occupied by Charles Todd Naylor, with income from money lent on

railway speculation.5 Several families in the final decade of the century in fact drew no wage

of any sort, deriving their income from annuities, rents, or other independent means.

Numerous educated and skilled workers included the clergy and teachers, a solicitor and

surveyor, a photographic artist, and engineers. Skilled artisans lived along Holgate Road,

namely a gunsmith, a joiner and cabinet maker, and a telephone wireman. There were also

plentiful small businessmen and shopkeepers, including a market gardener. A charwoman

was the only unskilled individual among the household heads. Holgate Road at the end of the

nineteenth century had indeed evolved into a relatively affluent community.

The new arrivals of 1861 in St Paul’s Square were also relatively wealthy and educated.

They included no manual working-class families and only three railway employees, a goods

manager, the manager of the sack department, and a cashier. Several tradesmen and

4 The York Herald reported these facts and incidents: Y.H., 11.5.1861; Y.H., 23.8.1862; Y.H., 15.6.1861; Y.H.,

26.5.1860; Y.H., 10.8.1861; Y.H., 27.6.1863.

5 G. Hodgson, A History of Holgate (in five parts): Part Four Nineteenth Century Holgate (York, 1999), p. 4.

149

merchants lived in the square then, notably a tea dealer and comb manufacturer, some of

whom were retired. The educated included solicitors, a teacher, an architect and surveyor,

and a vicar and a clergyman’s widow. These were ‘comfortable homes in a respectable

neighbourhood.’6 A third of the resident householders, both men and women, were people of

independent means, fundholders, landed proprietors and annuitants. The early isolated

inhabitants of St Paul’s Square had moved in from other parts of York and other Yorkshire

towns in the main, and there were few newcomers from further afield. This pattern of

occupations and arrivals was maintained in the square until at least the start of the twentieth

century. The long-stay families of 1891 were a mix of the retired or those of independent

means and the professional or managerial elite.

The families of newly-built St Paul’s Terrace and adjoining Railway Terrace made a

community of quite different character from their neighbours in Holgate Road and St Paul’s

Square. The 1871 census of these two terraces shows that only about a third of the final total

of houses had been built at that time or at least were occupied. The heads of these

households were all working married men who had moved into their new terraced homes

with wives and young children. They had all also moved into the city from elsewhere,

principally from towns and villages in Yorkshire and also from the North East, namely

Durham and Northumberland. This was a pattern of arrivals in new suburbs in other small

towns. They had been attracted to this new development by the railway itself; barring two

shopkeepers and a cab driver, all these men were employed by the railway. About half of

them in fact were engine drivers or firemen, the elite of the railway workforce, and many of

the remainder were joiners. These terraces were built then for working-class railwaymen and

their families after the height of the railway mania in York, and they retained this character

throughout the rest of the century. By 1891, when long-stay families were at their peak,

railway families still lived in four out of every five of the houses, even though most of the

engine drivers had left.7

6 Joseph Cockhill, a tradesman ‘… took a house in St Paul’s Square. … His profession called him a good deal

from home, and he wished to take a house in a respectable neighbourhood, where his wife would be

comfortable, and also to have a comfortable home to come to off his voyages.’ Y.H., 25.2.1860.

7 Household heads employed on the railway lived in 67 of the 84 houses in these 2 terraces in 1891. Only 5 of

these men were engine drivers. Of the 10 engine drivers present in the 1871 census of St Paul’s and Railway

Terraces who did not persist as head of household for the next decade, four moved as an engine driver to a street

elsewhere in York.

150

Table 8

Summary of Persistent Surnames of Holgate [1]

HR SPT RT SPS HR SPT RT SPS HR SPT RT SPS HR SPT RT SPS HR SPT RT SPS HR SPT RT SPS HR SPT RT SPS

1 Total number of households 33 73 78 24 82 27 12 27 79 64 32 28 82 58 31 30 91 62 33 33

2 Total number of persistent surnames 29 38 39 14 44 39 16 14 43 45 27 17

3Number of new persistent surnames

set to stay for at least 10 years15 15 13 4 20 28 15 2 11 10 10 8

4

Number of new persistent surnames

set to live in same house for at least a

further 10 years

26 18

5


set to live in same house for a further

10 to 20 years

13 7

6



further 20 years

22 9

7

Number of persistent surnames that

had been resident for at least 10

years

14 15 15 10 13 11 1 4 20 28 15 2 10 9 10 8

8



years

8 8 6 8 7 7 0 3 13 21 9 0

9



years

3 3 3 4 5 3 0 1

10



years

2 2 1 4

11



years

0 2

12



years

0

19011841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891

151

Summary of Persistent Surnames of Holgate [2]

HR SPT RT SPS HR SPT RT SPS HR SPT RT SPS HR SPT RT SPS HR SPT RT SPS HR SPT RT SPS HR SPT RT SPS

1 Total number of households 33 73 78 24 82 27 12 27 79 64 32 28 82 58 31 30 91 62 33 33

2 Total number of persistent surnames 40% 49% 48% 52% 56% 61% 50% 50% 52% 78% 87% 57%


set to stay for at least 10 years21% 19% 16% 15% 25% 44% 47% 7% 13% 17% 32% 27%

4



further 10 years

45% 58%

5


set to live in same house for a further

10 to 20 years

20% 22%

6



further 20 years

34% 28%

7



years

19% 19% 18% 37% 17% 17% 3% 14% 24% 48% 48% 7% 11% 15% 30% 24%

8



years

10% 10% 8% 29% 9% 12% 0% 10% 14% 34% 27% 0%

9



years

4% 4% 4% 13% 6% 5% 0% 3%

10



years

3% 2% 1% 12%

11



years

0% 2%

12



years

0%

1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

152

Walmgate

Following the exodus from Ireland in the wake of the potato famine, migrant arrivals peaked

in Long Close Lane in 1851 and in Hope Street ten years later, where they continued to

appear for at least another three decades. Families showed transience and mobility in the

occupation of these overcrowded houses, particularly by Irish immigrants.

The surnames of the heads of household of these two streets in the censuses of 1841 to 1901

are listed in Appendices 20 and 21. A summary of the data in these two Appendices appears

in Table 9. The householders in the census years before 1861were semi-skilled workers in

the main. Linen weavers, milliners and tailors, cabinet makers and joiners, stonemasons,

coach-makers and shoe-makers appear among the occupants. However, from 1861 until at

least the end of the century these dwellings were headed almost entirely by labourers of one

kind or another. These labourers were predominantly agricultural in the third quarter of the

century. Towards the end of the century labourers of a more urban or industrial nature came

to dominate the housing, such as bricklayers’ labourers and furnacemen and gravel pit

labourers, saw mill and foundry workers, glass blowers and bottle washers, and brewers’ and

gardeners’ labourers. Some householders gave their occupations as hawkers, fortune teller,

grinders and scavengers. Few railway labourers and barge watermen lived there, the latter

presumably plying their trade on the nearby Foss. The very occasional more skilled

individual inhabited this working-class slum neighbourhood throughout the period, including

an engine driver, a bus driver, an attorneys clerk, and some street musicians of Italian

extraction.1 A few police constables and some shopkeepers and publicans complete the

picture.

Figures 81 and 82 show the number of persistent surnames in the censuses of 1851 to 1891,

that is to say surnames of heads of household which were present in the streets between

consecutive censuses.2

1 Barrel organs and one-man bands were common in working-class neighbourhoods; see S. Meacham, A Life

Apart: The English Working Class 1890-1914 (London, 1977), p. 162.

2 The censuses of 1841 and 1901 cannot be used to calculate persistence data, since the number of isonymic

heads that had been present for 10 years cannot be identified in the first enumeration for a street and the number

of isonymic heads that were destined to stay for a further 10 years cannot be identified in the enumeration of

1901.

153

Figure 81. Number of persistent isonymic heads of household in Walmgate streets between

1851 and 1891

Figure 82. Persistent isonymic heads of household in Walmgate streets between 1851 and

1891 expressed as percentage of total number of households

Persistent surnames as defined by this means tended to increase both in absolute numbers and

in percentage terms across the half century, and they were always in greater number and

proportion in Hope Street than in Long Close Lane. Generally about a half of the isonymic

heads of household after 1871 remained in the same street for at least a decade. A closer look

at the data and at individual named heads shows, on the other hand, that only very rarely at

any census had more than a quarter of the persistent heads of household been resident as such

for at least 10 years. Few persistent heads had ever been present in the streets for at least 20

years, and very few for at least 30 years. These figures, however, provide only an incomplete

picture of the persistence of households along Hope Street or Long Close Lane. Not

154

uncommonly households left the streets for a short period of time to be enumerated at a

census in another street nearby (and thus evading the definition of a ‘persistent’ surname)

only to return for the next or subsequent census. The household of Michael Calpin (born in

1836 in Ireland), for example, lived at various addresses in Long Close Lane between the

censuses of 1861 and 1901, but was registered in 1891 in Hope Street. Similarly Michael

Brannon (born of Irish descent in 1850 in York) lived in houses in Long Close Lane in 1851,

1871 and 1891, but was resident in nearby Wenlock Street and Ebor Court in the same

district of Walmgate in 1861 and 1901. His whereabouts in 1881 are unknown. Probably the

parishes of wider Walmgate, rather than the confines of Hope Street and Long Close Lane,

would therefore show even higher levels of persistence.

Conclusions that can be drawn from the lives of these persistent families in Holgate and

Walmgate are discussed in Chapters 6 and 7, where they are seen alongside kinship families

that came to reside in these streets in York.

155

Table 9

Summary of Persistent Surnames of Hope Street and Long Close Lane [1]

HS LCL HS LCL HS LCL HS LCL HS LCL HS LCL HS LCL

1 Total number of IFs 97 40 93 58 119 74 111 66 112 70 105 58 103 65

2 Total number of persistent surnames 41 17 50 26 58 32 68 33 62 31


set to stay for at least 10 years12 9 24 16 25 12 23 8 15 9

4



years

29 8 12 10 24 16 25 12 23 8 15 9

5



years

14 1 3 4 14 12 10 7 10 6

6



years

6 0 2 1 10 7 7 7

7



years

4 0 1 0 3 2

8



years

3 0 0 0

9



years

1 0

1861 1871 1881 1891 19011841 1851

156

Summary of Persistent Surnames of Hope Street and Long Close Lane [2]

HS LCL HS LCL HS LCL HS LCL HS LCL HS LCL HS LCL

1 Total number of IFs 97 40 93 58 119 74 111 66 112 70 105 58 103 65

2 Total number of persistent surnames 44% 29% 42% 35% 52% 49% 61% 47% 59% 54%


set to stay for at least 10 years13% 16% 20% 22% 23% 18% 21% 11% 14% 16%

4



years

31% 14% 10% 14% 22% 24% 22% 17% 22% 14% 15% 14%

5



years

12% 2% 3% 6% 13% 17% 10% 12% 10% 9%

6



years

5% 0% 2% 1% 10% 12% 7% 11%

7



years

4% 0% 1% 0% 3% 3%

8



years

3% 0% 0% 0%

9



years

1% 0%

1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

157

Swaledale

The majority of kinship families living in Swaledale in 1841 experienced a decline in number

by the end of the century. Several of these families fell by more than a half as measured by the

number of households, while some became extinct from the dale in this 60-year period.1 Some

families grew in size, however. Appendix 11 shows the details of two selected groups of

kinship families: all those families in decline that showed a fall of 10 or more household heads

between 1841 and 1901; and all those persistent families that showed a rise of 2 or more

household heads over the same period.

These kinship families grew in number or migrated into the dale in the second half of the

nineteenth century as the lead mining industry collapsed. None of these ‘growth’ families

showed the same magnitude of success (or survival) in Swaledale as the magnitude of the

failure of those families in decline. This section looks at the plots and trajectories of those 11

families whose number of heads of household grew by at least two between 1841 and 1901

(Table 10). The plots of these persistent families are tabulated in Appendix 22.

Table 10. Swaledale kinship families with the greatest growth in household head numbers

1 A total of 416 surnames of household heads were identified in the censuses of upper Swaledale between 1841

and 1901. Of these 416 families, 238 (or 57%) declined in number over this period, as measured by the number

of household heads, 105 (or 25%) showed no change in overall number, and 73 (or 18%) showed an increase in

number (growth families). Of the 279 surnames in Swaledale held by household heads in the census of 1841,

134 had gone by 1901. On the other hand, there were 61 surnames identified as a head (or heads) of household

in the 1901 census that had not been present as such in the 1841 census.

Kinship Family Surname Total Heads 1841 Total Heads 1901 Change 1841 to 1901

Rutter 5 9 4

Scott 7 11 4

Binks 1 4 3

Percival 0 3 3

Reynoldson 4 7 3

Wallis 0 3 3

Appleton 0 2 2

Dougill 0 2 2

Highmoor 0 2 2

Parrington 0 2 2

Thornborrow 0 2 2

158

Figure 83. Number of household heads of persistent families in Swaledale between 1841 and

1901

Figure 83 shows that the growth of these families was continuous and prolonged. Steady

increases in the number of farming households and families engaged in trades and crafts

accounted for the success of these kinships. Some of these occupations were tied to the land,

including farm labouring, gamekeeping and shepherding, and others supported a rural

population in diverse ways, such as innkeepers and postmasters, stonemasons and builders,

joiners and carpenters, grocers and butchers, shoemakers and drapers, millers and corn

dealers, housekeepers, charwomen and laundresses. A few men prospered in lead mining

despite the collapse of the industry, and a few successful families combined farming and

mining.

There are several contrasts between these individual kinship families and those whose

numbers dropped over the second half of the nineteenth century. They showed no undue

reliance on the precarious mining industry. The viability of only two families, the Rutters

and the Reynoldsons, depended upon lead mining until the end of the century, and they had

the good fortune to be employed by the most enduring company, the Old Gang Mine in

Melbecks district. Other families, and most notably the Scott family, prospered in farming in

Muker, the most agricultural of the four districts. The four sons of John Scott of Keld,

landowner and farmer, each in time had their own farm, as indeed did their sons. And yet

other branches of these kinship families concentrated on skills essential to the local economy.

Several householders of the Binks family provided services such as laundress, bootmaker,

butcher and draper to the small town of Reeth. Three men of the Dougill family were the

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Nu

mb

er o

f H

ead

s of

Hou

seh

old

Year

Heads in Farming

Heads in Mining

Heads in Farming &Mining

Trades & Crafts

Total Heads ofHouseholds

159

most sustained craftsmen providing stonemasonry and building expertise based in Melbecks

for the entire half century.

These families proved themselves to be adaptable, possibly in the face of adverse economic

circumstances, switching their professed occupation as the need arose. Thomas Rutter, a lead

miner for more than 20 years, switched to farming in Melbecks; Jane Scott, widow of a lead

miner, made a successful change to farming, to be succeeded by her son who then reverted to

mining; and the Binks farmers who alternated with trading occupations. Families also

demonstrated versatility in their ability to declare dual, or even triple, occupations in their

census returns. Richard Parrington, for example, combined both innkeeping and shoemaking

with farming, and Mary Ann Percival, widow of James, took on his occupation of grocer and

miller and combined it with farming. George Reynoldson, a leadminer in Melbecks for

almost the entire period of the study, also kept the King’s Arms Inn in Gunnerside.2

Persistent families in the dale in the main were established farmers of Muker district, lead

miners of Melbecks, and Reeth farmers, some of whom diversified into trades and other

skills. Very few of these household heads farmed or mined in Arkengarthdale. Some,

however, migrated from one district of Swaledale to another, a pattern rarely seen in familes

that dwindled in size. Two of the sons of James Percival moved from Melbecks into Reeth,

and John Appleton switched from lead mining in Melbecks to farming in Reeth while one of

his two sons remained. Yet other kinship families in this group originated not in Swaledale,

however, but in other northern dales and small towns, or Westmorland. The wives of some

of these local dalesmen came from elsewhere, such as Margaret Rutter from Appleby in

Westmorland, Margery Scott from Durham, or Elizabeth Wallis from Baldersdale. Kinship

family households arriving from beyond the dale tended to settle later in the century. And

some staggered arrivals of household heads of the same kinship came from the same place,

such as Simon and George Dougill from Pateley Bridge or Richard and James Parrington

from Dent. Collectively then these families demonstrated mobility and possibly a chain

reaction in the in-migration of some new kinship groups, as well as adaptability in their

occupations and residence. Chapters 6 and 7 of this thesis set these families into the context

of a community experiencing mass rural depopulation.

2 A portrait and a brief biography of George Reynoldson appears in E. Bogg, Richmondshire: An Account of its

History and Antiquities, Characters and Customs, Legendary Lore, and Natural History (Leeds, 1908), pp. 364

– 365.

160

Chapter 6

Community and Kinship Families in York and Swaledale

‘When we leave the tidy quantifiable worlds of economics and demography and enter the

world of ideas and beliefs, it is easy to lose our way. … But most aspects of human

interaction cannot be easily counted, and if we look only at numbers we may miss the main

show.’1

This penultimate chapter attempts to describe some communities in Victorian times that lived

in Holgate and Walmgate in York and in Upper Swaledale during episodes of migration.2

The emphasis is placed upon changes in these districts over the nineteenth century and the

effects these shifts had on kinship families. Four of the research questions outlined in the

Introduction to this thesis are addressed in this chapter, namely: what were the motivations of

kinship families to migrate into York or out of Swaledale?; was there a pattern of migration

of kinship families into York and out of Swaledale?; did kin move together in a chain

migration?; and how did migrant kinship families interact with their new community, and did


Holgate streets attracted people from the full economic spectrum of the railway world. The

kinship families that moved into the new working-class terraces found manual employment

on the railway and families with higher status and income settled in more affluent streets

nearby. Irish families gravitated to slum streets in the City and subsisted on agricultural

labour, while Swaledale emigrants responded to both economic and social forces. Details of

the motivations driving these migrations with some individual family histories are given in

this chapter.

Details of the arrival or departure of migrant kinship families are also developed in this

chapter. Railway kinship families tended to settle in Holgate streets over a period of time and

the Irish poor arrived in pulses or waves. The departure of rural kinship families from

Swaledale was continuous over half a century. The notion that people would uproot and

move to live elsewhere in the wake of family members who had gone before is well described

1 Steven Ruggles, Prolonged Connections: The Rise of the Extended Family in Nineteenth Century England and

America (Madison, 1987), p. 129.

2 Some aspects of ‘community’ are discussed in: C. Bell and H. Newby (eds), The Sociology of Community: A

Selection of Readings (Abingdon, 1974); and C. Bell and H. Newby, Community Studies (1971, London, 1975).

161

in the historiography of migration.3 Aspects of such chain migration into some streets of

York and out of rural Swaledale in the nineteenth century are explored further and related to

some specific kinship family histories.

Railway communities in Victorian England tended to maintain their distinct culture and

social practices, and Irish immigrants retained their ethnic identity. These themes are set into

the specific context of nineteenth-century York. How the exodus from Swaledale impacted

on the community left in the dale and how migrant miners retained their culture and links

home are the final considerations of this chapter.

York

The Introduction to this thesis summarised the general background to York’s population in

the early nineteenth century. However, there are also two detailed contemporary reports on

the working classes in the City written at the middle of the century to coincide with the early

Irish potato famine immigrants, and at the end of the century when the Irish and railway

migrations were drawing to a close. The former was compiled by Thomas Laycock,

physician to the York Dispensary, and the latter by B. Seebohm Rowntree, a visionary social

reformer inspired by the work of Charles Booth in London.4

Laycock’s sanitary report of 1844 sought to correlate some social parameters of districts of

York, such as housing and sanitation, the number of sick members in benefit societies, the

duration of their sickness and of the allowance they received, with the altitude and level of

drainage of the streets. He believed that differences in drainage of the City related to mean

altitude were responsible for variations in mortality within different districts. He listed the

drainage altitude of each parish in York in a 'sanitary table'. The urban parts of Walmgate

subdistrict were found to have the worst drained and worst ventilated streets and dwellings of

3 See, for example, C. Pooley and J. Turnbull, Migration and Mobility in Britain since the Eighteenth Century

(London, 1998).

4 Parliamentary Paper: First Report of The Commissioners for inquiring into the state of large towns and

populous districts 1844; Report on the sanatory condition of the City of York, by Thos Laycock, M.D; B.S.

Rowntree, Poverty: A Study of Town Life (1901; Bristol, 2000); C. Booth, Life and Labour of the People of

London (London, 17 volumes, 1889-1903). See also M. Huby, J. Bradshaw and A. Corden, A Study of Town

Life: Living Standards in the City of York 100 years after Rowntree (York, 1999) for a more contemporary view

of poverty in York.

162

any of the parishes of York. The low-lying position of the streets of Walmgate, he believed,

was responsible for the poor health of its occupants.5

The death rate in Walmgate reflected these insanitary conditions, and the birth rate also

compounded the plight of the poor. Fertility in the three York subdistricts was highest in

Walmgate, as was the local illegitimacy rate.6 Armstrong has suggested that fertility was

lower in the top two classes in Victorian York, and that Walmgate maintained its higher

fertility rates throughout the 1840s. Not only were children in Walmgate more overcrowded

in their homes and more likely to die than children in more prosperous subdistricts, they were

also likely to receive less education. The proportion of children receiving education at the

age of 12 years was significantly lower in Walmgate than in Bootham or Micklegate.7

Provision of religious instruction for adults was impoverished in the Walmgate parishes

compared with parishes elsewhere. Anglican places of worship were in short supply in the

poorest parishes, where attendance at the services was at its lowest.8

Walmgate and Fossgate, main thoroughfares in the City of York, were once the setting of fine

Georgian houses. These houses had been converted into tenements capable of housing

multiple families, and a comparison of the ordnance survey maps of 1852 and 1889 shows the

conversion of practically every available open space into some type of building.9 York cattle

market was originally sited in Walmgate itself, and long close field adjacent to the market

was where cattle rested. Long Close Lane was built on this field in 1810, leading via Willow

5 Walmgate had a mean drainage altitude of 31 feet, and Micklegate and Bootham were 14 and 16 feet higher,

respectively.

6 A. Armstrong, Stability and Change in an English County Town: A social study of York 1801-51 (Cambridge,

1974), pp. 170 – 171.

7 Armstrong, Stability and Change, pp. 71 – 73. Rowntree observed at the end of the century that ‘Too often the

home life of the child is spent amidst dirt and slovenliness, and its only chance of seeing and learning to

appreciate clean, airy, orderly rooms is at school.’ (Rowntree, Poverty, p. 336.)

8 Six Anglican churches were listed in Walmgate subdistrict in the 1851 Census of Religious Worship. On the

day of the census the largest single general congregation of 650 people met in the parish church of St. Saviour.

The vicar of St. Margaret’s Church noted: ‘We greatly need increased accommodation in our church. Want of

better accommodation now prevents many from attending church.’ The largest single Nonconformist

congregation was 1037 individuals in the Wesleyan Methodist Chapel of St. Saviourgate, and 418 worshippers

attended St. George’s Roman Catholic Church (J. Wolffe (ed.), Yorkshire Returns of the 1851 Census of

Religious Worship. Volume 1: Introduction, City of York and East Riding (York University, 2000), pp. 5 – 8.)

9 A description of Irish ghetto communities is given in: F. Finnegan, Poverty and Prejudice: A Study of Irish

Immigrants in York 1840-1875 (Cork, 1982), pp. 35 – 65.

163

Street onto Walmgate itself.10 Mentioned in Laycock's report of 1844, Long Close Lane was

a hopeless slum from the day it was built, largely because of the absence of adequate sanitary

provisions. Single owners rented out multiple cottages in this street, and houses in this slum

remained occupied for more than a century.

The privations of Walmgate owed much to its low-lying position in relation to the River Foss.

Those who lived by the River Ouse, the other waterway through the City, fared better, even

though both rivers were prone to flooding. The Foss had been canalised in 1795-1805, and a

lock constructed at Castle Mills.11 The districts of Walmgate, Hungate, Foss Islands and

Layerthorpe were centred often in a sheet of stagnant water replete with animal and vegetable

refuse. The houses of the poor in Walmgate had only midden privies, they had no side drains

communicating with the main sewers, and the drains and sewers carrying refuse to the rivers

themselves were inadequate. These slum dwellings conformed to the simple plan of a room

10 to 15 feet square entered directly from the street or court and a dark narrow stair leading to

another room of identical size. Terraces were often closed at both ends by a block of

communal privies or another terrace, and accessible often by narrow alleys or passages.12

Such working-class housing was often built in poorly-drained areas of land, and often with

inferior materials and workmanship by small speculative builders aiming to avoid bankruptcy

by maximising short term profits.13 The houses of Long Close Lane and Hope Street had

been constructed under no statutory control.14 The builders, Dr Laycock informed the City

10 V. Wilson, The Walmgate Story (2006, York, 2012), p. 55.

11 M.G. Fife and P.J. Walls, The River Foss from Yearsley Village to York: Its History and Natural History

(York, 1973), pp. 14 -22. The advent of the railways in the 1840s heralded the commercial decline of the Foss

Navigation.

12 Parliamentary Paper: First Report of The Commissioners for inquiring into the state of large towns and

populous districts 1844; Report on the sanatory condition of the City of York, by Thos Laycock, M.D, pp. 93 –

96.

13 R. Rodger, Housing in Urban Britain, 1780-1914 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 26 - 34. Rimmer describes builders

and their practices in Hungate, York, north of the River Foss: J. Rimmer, ‘People and their buildings in the

working-class neighbourhood of Hungate, York’, International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 15 (2011), p.

617. The construction and rental of similar housing in Manchester is described in F. Engels, ‘The great towns’,

in G. Bridge and S. Watson (eds), The Blackwell City Reader (Chichester, 2010), p. 11.

14 There were no effective housing standards before 1858 (Rodger, Housing, pp. 15&26). Small speculative

builders constructed low-income housing with inferior materials and poor workmanship in an attempt to

maximise short-term profits and avoid bankruptcy. Poorly drained land such as Long Close Lane was

developed regardless of ownership or the nature of the tenure.

164

Commissioners, ‘… [had not been] compelled to sewer, drain or prepare the ground in any

way for the health and convenience of the inhabitants except as their own judgement

dictated.’ Having erected these hovels, the builders subsequently appeared before the City

Commissioners on occasion to defend their actions and were urged to improve the lot of the

inhabitants. To some extent an owner could sympathise with a tenant, agreeing to pay the

poor rate on their behalf.15 Mr John Smith, builder and owner of 20 properties in the Lane,

however, was charged with allowing several of his houses to remain in a ‘dirty and filthy

state’. He had paid £5 of his own money for the construction of a drain.16 Eight occupants of

these houses then attended the hearing to complain, and were urged to raise funds themselves

for the drainage work. Smith offered to pay a further £10, but then arguing that the case

against him had not been proved, left the Commissioners making no contribution. A

discussion had taken place before the City Commissioners as to whether the owners of this

slum or the public purse should bear the cost of paving and draining.17 Indeed, there was

even an unspoken view that the inhabitants of Long Close Lane were themselves somehow to

blame for the squalid houses in which they lived; ‘if [the labouring classes] were to refuse to

live in dwellings which are without proper drainage,’ said the York Herald, ‘the owners

would cease to erect hovels, which are better suited for the domiciles of pigs than for the

habitations of human beings’.18

Rowntree’s report on poverty in York half a century later found a general death rate of 18.5

and an infant death rate of 175 per 1000 population, and significantly higher rates in the

‘poorest’ section of the population (see Table 1).19 He identified the poorest section of the

15 Y.H., 14.10.1848. Jane Harton of Long Close Lane had an agreement with Mr Smith, her landlord, that he

should pay her poor rate due to the parish.

16 Y.H., 23.10.1847 and 20.11.1847. Other landlords were Mr Lakin and Mr Fisher, who both offered to

contribute to the scheme. Mr Barber owned property in Long Close Lane in 1840 worth £16 a year (Y.H.,

19.9.1840).

17 Y.H., 21.11.1846.

18 Y.H., 15.9.1849 Editorial: The Health of York. There was widespread conviction even in the early twentieth

century that slums were the consequence of failings in the inhabitants (S.M. Gaskell (ed.), Slums (Leicester,

1990), p. 5). Charles Booth took the same dim view of the poor of London; see J. Bullman, N. Hegarty and B.

Hill, The Secret History of Our Streets: A Story of London (2012, London, 2013), p. 13. Englander compounds

the issue by noting that rents were extracted from the poor to help finance the housing of the suburban bourgeois

(D. Englander, Landlord and Tenant in Urban Britain 1838 – 1918 (Oxford, 1983), pp. ix – xviii.).

19Armstrong, Stability and Change, p. 53.

165

population in Walmgate with Hungate, where there was a general death rate of 27.8 and an

infant death rate of 247 per 1000 population. He contrasted these rates with the 'middle' and

'highest' sections of the population, where the general and infant death rates were

significantly lower than in Walmgate.20 Just under one half of the working class was living

in poverty at the time, amounting to 28% of the total population of the City.21 Low wages

and big families were the two largest causes of poverty. Within Walmgate the size of the

population living below the poverty line rose to 69%. Poverty in York was compounded by

overcrowding. The average family size rose in the nineteenth century from 4.2 to 4.7, and by

1899 the proportion of the population in the City living more than two persons to a room was

6.4%. In Walmgate back to back houses accounted for one third of the accommodation, and

the proportion of the residents in overcrowded rooms rose to one quarter. Of all the

overcrowded working-class families in York at the time of Rowntree’s survey, no less than

95% were in poverty.22

Holgate

The Holgate area of York experienced considerable upheaval during the nineteenth century

that transformed a rural backwater just outside the City walls into a railway community.

Railway workers migrated rapidly into York in the 1840s. The number of railway employees

rose from 41 in 1841 to 513 ten years later and by 1855 more than 1200 men were employed

in the station and engine works. By the end of the nineteenth century 5500 men worked in

the engine, wagon and carriage works and the station and offices of the North Eastern

20 General death rates were 20.7 and 13.5 and infant rates 184 and 173, respectively in the middle and highest

sections of the population.

21 Rowntree, Poverty, pp. 117-134. Rowntree defined poverty as a state in which ‘nothing can be bought but

that which is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of physical health, and what is bought must be of the

plainest and most economical description.’ He identified ‘primary’ poverty when the family’s total earnings

were insufficient to obtain the minimum necessaries for the maintenance of merely physical efficiency; and

‘secondary’ poverty when total earnings would have been sufficient for the maintenance of physical efficiency

were it not that some portion of it was absorbed by other expenditure, either useful or wasteful.

22 Rowntree, Poverty, pp. 166-181. A subsequent report compiled by Rowntree in 1941 (Poverty and Progress)

showed decline in poverty; see A. Briggs, Social Thought and Social Action: A Study of the Work of Seebohm

Rowntree 1871 – 1954 (London, 1961), pp. 282 – 303. Although overcrowding was common in York at the

time of Rowntree’s survey, it was more common in other northern cities such as Liverpool, Leeds, and

Newcastle (J. Burnett, A Social History of Housing 1815 – 1985 (London, 1986), p. 149.)

166

Railway company.23 York became a railway town with the opening of wagon and coach-

building shops, a new station built in 1877, and the station hotel and offices in 1906.24

Ownership of land and property were of the utmost importance in the planning and

construction of railways in Victorian England. Railway bills presented to Parliament shared

one crucial characteristic with bills presented to enclose rural land, namely to respect land

ownership titles and safeguard property. Landowners profited throughout the construction

process and exercised considerable influence upon the location of Victorian suburbs and the

selection of central depots and stations. The main consideration of the urban railway

entrepreneur was to achieve the simplest and cheapest approach lines and central station with

minimum disturbance of property.25 Having secured the goodwill of larger landowners,

developers cut through open land for the final approach to York station. The effect of the

arrival of this industrial machine on Holgate was severe, creating a wilderness of criss-

crossing supplementary tracks, carriage works and engine sheds. The approach to the City

not only intersected the land, it pinned down the social future of the surrounding housing. It

influenced the social mix of the streets around, and guided their direction and rates of growth.

By cutting through agricultural land on the approach to York station, the railway avoided the

demolition of overcrowded housing and creation of slums seen in some other industrial towns

and cities.26

23 F.W. Brooks, ‘Victorian and later York’, in A. Stacpoole (ed.), The Noble City of York (York, 1972), pp. 321 -

327. Up until 1841 York gained little by in-migration from the rest of the country. The rate of increase in York

was formerly below the national average. The City was too far from the coal and iron fields to profit from the

technical developments of the age, it was not a textile town, and it was too far inland to handle the coastal traffic

of goods emanating from the manufacturing towns of the North and Midlands.

24 Brooks, ‘Victorian and later York’, pp. 328-330. The building of the ‘old’ station within the City walls and

the ‘new’ replacement just outside led to major changes in the street plan of York. New openings had to be

made in the walls, and in order to improve access to the railway station, new roads leading off from the old

central axis of the City and a bridge over the Ouse were built. The building of the station turned York on a new

axis. The new station was a feat of engineering skill, and the old one also had architectural merit (J. Simmons,

‘The power of the railway’, in H.J. Dyos and M. Wolff (eds), The Victorian City: Images and Realities, volume

1 (London, 1973), p. 301). Railway workers declined in number after 1905 when the locomotive repair works

were removed to Darlington. The railways transformed Darlington into a major industrial centre (Simmons,

‘The power of the railway’, p. 293).

25 J.R. Kellett, The Impact of Railways on Victorian Cities (London, 1969), pp. 421-424 and 4-27. See also

Simmons, ‘The power of the railway’, p. 277.

26 The construction of railways and stations often entailed destruction of houses for the poor without thought of

alternative accommodation (Gaskell, Slums, p. 12). The slums around the railway approach of Manchester are

described in Engels, ‘The great towns’, p. 11.

167

The railways thus contributed to the urban growth in York and the building of working-class

housing. This may have led to a rapid increase in land values. Land values in the centre of

Victorian cities doubled in the 30 years after 1840, but land prices in the suburbs could

increase by 10- to 20-fold in the same time. These houses were usually rented, and the

number of occupiers who could afford to purchase their house was small. Not only therefore

were surviving houses packed even more densely than before the railway arrived, but rents in

railway areas could rise by up to 50%.27 Housing for these migrant workers fell into two

categories. There were houses built for the scattered employees who had to live near their

work, and large collections of concentrated housing in the railway towns such as York for

men employed at the depots and workshops. The houses were rather uniform, and many

were built by the companies themselves.28 Some company housing came to be regarded as

almost a condition of service. Many grades of workers, including inspectors, foremen,

porters, guards and ticket collectors were provided with houses as part of their remuneration

at some time and to varying degrees. Whilst most station masters were provided with a

house, the only other grade provided with accommodation was the signalmen. About a tenth

of employees lived in a company house in railway Britain and by the end of the century few

employees paid rent for company housing.29

Holgate grew and was transformed by the arrival of steam. Holgate Road, once a sleepy rural

rutted track into the walled City of York, evolved into a community of small businessmen

and men of higher status. Agricultural employees had been replaced with a more affluent

society including some high managerial ranks of the railway empire. St Paul’s Square

became the province of the more private gentrified echelons of society, the retired, those of

independent means, and some professional elite. The nearby residential areas of St Paul’s

and Railway Terraces were the much more bland homogeneous streets. They had been built

to receive railwaymen and they retained this character for the rest of the century. The

terraces were the enclave of the working-class families, whose menfolk spent their long days

in the adjacent railway engine sheds and shunting yards. It was these families predominantly

27 Kellett, The Impact of Railways, pp. 330 – 390.

28 Simmons notes that the railways by the 1870s had built ‘miles’ of closely-built two-storeyed houses, mainly

in terraces (Simmons, ‘The power of the railway’, p. 299).

29 P.W. Kingsford, Victorian Railwaymen: The Emergence and Growth of Railway Labour 1830-1870 (London,

1970), pp. 110 – 127.

168

who put down deeper roots than their more affluent neighbours, tending to arrive with related

kin and staying for prolonged periods of time. The engine drivers arrived particularly early in

these terraces, nearly half of the total number who ever lived in St Paul’s Terrace arriving in

the initial influx of families.30

Residential Persistence

At least half of the isonymic heads of household in this study of Holgate streets in the

censuses of 1881 and 1891 were resident for at least a decade. The percentages of these long-

stay residents rose between these two censuses, such that nine in every ten isonymic families

in Railway Terrace in 1891 were persistent families. A third of the new arrivals in this

census of the working-class terraces were set to live in the same house for at least the next 20

years. These two terraces showed stability in the resident families over and above that of

other working-class families, attributable probably to the almost universal employment of the

household heads on the railway, rather than their social standing.

These residential patterns provide useful information on the strength of social ties among the

railway population. The choice to live with kin or in a house nearby is a strong indication of

close kinship bonds. As Anderson notes of working-class Preston, ‘there are few functions

which can be performed by a co-residing kinsman which he cannot perform equally well if he

instead lives next door, or even up the street.’31 Possibly choosing to live near close family

members was as much a reflection of local knowledge of suitable available housing as the

desire to be in proximity, or even fortuitous if personal attachments were minimal. At any

rate, kinship provided a significant function. The railway kinship families of St Paul’s and

Railway Terraces in Holgate were either fathers and sons or pairs of siblings, and there was a

30 An important characteristic of employment on the railways was the elaborate hierarchy of grades of workers.

These grades were linked both in levels of pay and status. The enginemen enjoyed a particularly elevated status

and independence. They were recruited mainly from labourers who showed some aptitude or skill, and they

were the only group who had training. As a consequence, enginemen were more skilled and better paid than the

lower ranks and less likely to leave railway employment. The enginemen formed a self-contained and cohesive

group, strengthened by their line of promotion (Kingsford, Victorian Railwaymen, pp. 1 – 2, 45, 81 – 82 & 132

– 138). Drivers were free agents in the earliest days of the railway, freely moving between companies to fill

vacancies (F. McKenna, The Railway Workers 1840 – 1970 (London, 1980), pp. 151 – 189.).

31 M. Anderson, Family Structure in Nineteenth Century Lancashire (Cambridge, 1971), p. 56 - 58. Anderson

noted a noticeable tendency for related persons to congregate near each other and a propensity for couples not to

move far on marriage. See also M. Young and P. Wilmott, Family and Kinship in East London (London, 1957),

in which the effects on kinship bonds of a move to a 1950s housing estate were studied in depth; effective links

depended greatly on geographical proximity of key family figures.

169

strong tendency for father to live next door to his son or brother next door to his sibling.

These men were predominantly semi-skilled craftsmen in the nearby engine, wagon and

carriage works, such as carriage-builders and fitters. The kinship families of Holgate Road

and St Paul’s Square included also a mother and daughter and some cousins.

Attention has been given specifically to the tendency for households not to move to a

different address in the railway industry. Clusters of households from key employment

sectors in the railway community often remained in the same houses between censuses.

There was residential and family or kinship segregation within the workforce. Long-serving

staff in the Derby staff, particularly managerial, clerical and artisan grades, showed

remarkable stability, possibly because their employer was also effectively their landlord.32 In

Gant’s study of three railway villages, an analysis of occupational grades and homes of

railway staff showed preferential location of engine drivers in one residential area.33

Similarly in the Derby railway workforce, employees were less prone to move house than

might be expected in comparison with other occupational groups.34 Calculation of 10 yearly

persistence rates within the neighbourhood between 1860 and 1880 showed that rates for

railway households were about 5 to 10% higher than those for other residents in the same

street. Traffic staff were the core of long-term residents, engine drivers appearing by far the

most stable grade of the workforce.

Residential persistence or mobility is a cornerstone by which the social character of an area

may be set. Communities are most likely to grow when families have lived in the same

streets for a long time, and when neighbours are kin.35 Some studies of Victorian working-

32 G. Revill, ‘”Railway Derby”: Occupational community, paternalism and corporate culture 1850-1881’, Urban

History, 28 (2001), p. 401. See also H.J. Dyos, ‘Railways and housing in Victorian London’, Journal of

Transport History, 2 (1955), p. 11.

33 R. Gant, ‘Railway villages in south east Monmouthshire 1850-1965: a community perspective’,

LocalPopulation Studies, 90 (2013), pp. 49 – 72. Residential social segregation, however, was not a feature of

the railway town of Crewe after 1851 (D.K. Drummond, Crewe: Railway Town, Company and People 1840 –

1914 (Aldershot, 1995), p. 24).

34 Revill, ‘”Railway Derby”’, pp. 378 – 402.


258 - 264. Dennis found in Huddersfield no close association between persistence rate and social area, but

suggested that persistence may have been related to occupational status. The view that persistence engenders

community, however, is not universally accepted; see M. Anderson, ‘Indicators of population change and

stability in nineteenth-century cities: some sceptical comments’, in J.H. Johnson and C.G. Pooley (eds), The

Structure of Nineteenth Century Cities (London, 1982), p. 283.

170

class communities have attempted to assess residential stability. Generally about a fifth of

working-class households in these times probably remained at the same address for as long as

a decade. Dennis has tabulated from censuses and trades directories and from a selection of

northern industrial towns the percentages of residents in 1861 who were at the same address

in 1851 (backward tracing) and vice versa (forward tracing). In only the occasional town in

the nineteenth century (but notably in working-class York) did the proportion of persistent

householders exceed 20%. In the York sample taken from Parliamentary papers dated 1844

the numbers of residents at the same address after 1, 2 and 5 years were 76, 65 and 41%

respectively.36 Thus about a quarter of the residents in this sample moved during the course

of one year. More than half the residents of ten parishes in York in 1847 had lived in the

same house for less than five years.37 The discussion about residential persistence has been

expanded into a consideration of how far residents might move, showing that in Liverpool for

example, areas where persistence was low were associated in general with short moves of

less than a mile. Short-distance moves in Liverpool occurred mainly in working-class

residential districts, with long-distance moves from high-status areas.38 More than half the

moves within Leeds could be traced to addresses less than one quarter of a mile apart at

successive censuses.39 Many of the kinship families of St Paul’s and Railway Terraces had

arrived from other streets and terraces of the Holgate area of York in the environs of the

railway station, and a few others from more central areas of York.

Gant found social consolidation within the immigrant railway workers and the progressive

erosion of differences between the core community and newcomers over time. Areas first

36 Dennis, English Industrial Cities, pp. 255 – 268. Ward notes ‘high’ rates of mobility among the residents of

Leeds who remained within the City for ten years or more: D. Ward, ‘Environs and neighbours in the “Two

Nations” residential differentiation in mid-nineteenth century Leeds’, Journal of Historical Geography, 6

(1980), p. 155.

37 Chadwick in: Fourth Report from The Select Committee on Settlement, and Poor Removal; together with the

Minutes of Evidence taken before them 1847. Anderson notes from Chadwick’s report that more than a third of

the population of ten parishes in York in 1847 moved within two years: Anderson, Family Structure, p. 41.

38 R. Lawton and C.G. Pooley, ‘The social geography of Merseyside in the nineteenth century’, Historical

Methods Newsletter, 7 (1974), p. 276; C.G. Pooley, ‘Residential mobility in the Victorian city’, Transactions of

the Institute of British Geographers, 4 (1979), p. 258. Somewhat paradoxically, Dennis suggests that a more

useful indicator of community than persistence is the proportion of families who moved, but not very far, since

this captures households whose loyalty was to the neighbourhood rather than the house (Dennis, English

Industrial Cities, p. 264.).

39 Ward, ‘Environs and neighbours’, p. 157.

171

dominated by the railway developed intricate networks of neighbour support and interaction

and a strong feeling of difference with non-railway workers.40 Housing patterns and family

structures can provide some insights into the strength of communities and social ties among

the railway population. However, the length of time families persisted in the same house, or

in the same street, is not necessarily a sound indication of the strength of the local

‘community’. People may have been constrained to live in their house, and in conflict with

their neighbours. For the Victorian urban working-class railway family, with little emotional

attachment to their rented dwelling and minimal removal costs, residence in the same house

possibly signified commitment to their neighbourhood. On the other hand, it may have

mattered more to a railwayman’s attitude to his compatriots that he continued to work in the

same shed, or prayed in the same pew, as his neighbour than that he was obliged by force of

circumstance to live in the same house.41 At any rate, the railway employees of St Paul’s and

Railway Terraces showed stability and persistence in their occupation of houses greater than

other working-class families.

Family Migration into Holgate

The surname indices plotted for Holgate streets in this study are compatible with the idea that

employees would tend to follow or accompany family members into a railway community.

No kinship families arrived in the fledgling railway community of St Paul’s and Railway

Terraces in York when they were first built, but thereafter over the next 20 years kinship

families concentrated in these houses. Kinship families were attracted to the working-class

terraces and to Holgate Road, but not to the nearby more affluent quarter of St Paul’ Square.

Similar chain migration of family members employed on the railway has been observed

elsewhere. Sons followed fathers into the railway industry in Derby.42 Similarly in Brighton

jobs on the railway could attract other family members and former workmates.43 The

tendency for sons to follow father’s footsteps into the railway industry was particularly

prominent with skilled workshop men. Sheppard found that blacksmiths employed by the

40 Gant, ‘Railway villages’, p.72.

41 Dennis, English Industrial Cities, pp. 267 - 268.

42 Revill, ‘”Railway Derby”’, p. 392.

43 J.A. Sheppard, ‘The provenance of Brighton’s railway workers, 1841-61’, Local Population Studies, 72

(2004), pp. 26 – 31.

172

railway in Brighton in the 1860s were the sons of local blacksmiths, or had at least been

trained by them. The numerous employment opportunities from labourer to artisan grades to

professional staff on the railway provide comparisons with other industries with a tradition of

son following father, for example coal mining.44

Recruitment to the railway workforce was governed by patronage, a system that probably

accounts for the prevalence of family connection in railway service.45 The railway company

required a testimonial from a person of good standing, and young men from integrated

kinship networks may have found it easier to obtain such a reference than individuals from

less well-connected families.46 A remarkably high percentage of new recruits were under the

age of 35 years, and it was within this group that many unskilled workers stayed with the

company for only a short time.47 Applicants also required nomination by a director of the

company. The system secured the loyalty, reliability and respectability of railway

employees. Families provided continuous employment in the railway industry, and company

records suggest that long service was typical of railway work.

Growth of this new railway industry was rapid. It expanded more than any other employment

during the early- and mid-Victorian years. These waves of growth of the labour force

followed waves of capital investment. There was in general no shortage of supply of labour,

and the railway companies were not short of men whom they regarded as suitable to appoint.

The main recruitment area for the railways was from agriculture.48 A few of the railway

kinship families of Holgate in this study came from rural origins in nearby villages. Most

working-class railway families in the two terraces of Holgate emerged from similar manual

or semi-skilled labouring stock. More family arrivals came from the industrial regions of the

North East and Lancashire. On the other hand, kinship families of Holgate Road who did not

work on the railway tended to arrive from rural villages around York.

44 R. Lawton, ‘Mobility in nineteenth-century British cities’, Geographical Journal, 145 (1979), pp. 211 – 213.

45 Drummond, Crewe, p. 19; Kingsford, Victorian Railwaymen, pp. 4 - 8.

46 Sheppard, ‘Provenance of Brighton’s railway workers’, p. 31.

47 Kingsford, Victorian Railwaymen, p. 35.

48 Kingsford, Victorian Railwaymen, p. 2.

173

The railway industry offered job security in the form of career prospects and higher wages

than other occupations, and better accommodation. This attracted migrants to Derby, who

formed the bulk of the railway workforce. Different areas of the country provided different

occupational sectors. Many of these workers arrived in Derby with an established family.49

Gant identified an indigenous core group in a society of Welsh railway villages, into which

new minority groups moved.50 Similarly in railway Derby the workforce had a core

component of artisan elite, middle-ranking clerical grades and a few senior managers.

Sheppard looked in detail at the areas from which the railway industry in Brighton drew its

workforce in the middle of the nineteenth century.51 She suggested that the prospects for

railway employment were best for the rural migrants of established families, but not so good

for the casual agricultural labourer. The distance kinship families moved before their arrival

in the terraces of railway York varied. Some migrations before settling in York were short,

even from one village to the next, and other migrant families moved from one industrial

northern base to another before their arrival in Holgate.52 Families established in business,

craftsmen, a profession and those of independent means or in retirement from a successful

career took up residence in Holgate Road or St Paul’s Square usually after only a short move.

Moving from one place of work to another could be over long or short distances. Relevant

experience was clearly an inducement to move to work in Brighton, in that some porters,

guards and labourers came in from parishes with a railway station and elite engine drivers

were sometimes poached from earlier established railway companies.53 Many of the

movements of signalmen were short distance, from one signal box to another. Probably

about half of the moves, however, were of long distance. Studies of other industries have

shown that skilled posts in general attracted long-distance migrants from the more well-

established industrial areas of the country.54 Workers with specialist ironwork skills, for


50 Gant, ‘Railway villages’, p.58.

51 Sheppard, ‘Provenance of Brighton’s railway workers’, pp. 20 – 31.

52 Unskilled railway staff in nineteenth-century Crewe generally arrived from the immediate surrounding area.

Step migration was usual amongst these unskilled workers, but many skilled workers’ families moved straight to

Crewe from other industrial centres such as Lancashire and the Midlands (Drummond, Crewe, pp. 21 – 22).

53 Sheppard, ‘Provenance of Brighton’s railway workers’, p. 25.

54 Lawton, ‘Mobility in nineteenth-century British cities’, pp. 211 – 213.

174

example, were more inclined to relocate to Victorian Middlesbrough over long distances.55

Men local to the area were recruited for the less skilled jobs including labourers and porters.

Only about a quarter of engine drivers in Brighton had been born locally, but a half had

arrived from other areas of the British Isles.56 The most likely employees of all to be born

elsewhere were some workshop men, engineers, fitters and turners, and boilermakers. Major

sources of engineers and fitters in Brighton were Yorkshire (particularly Leeds), Lancashire,

Cheshire, Northumberland and Durham. About one third of the redeployments of railway

clerks were over a considerable distance, and about half of the onward employment of

guards. The average clerk or station master could expect to move his home and workplace

several times during his career. On many occasions this meant a complete uprooting of

family and home. Mobility became an increasingly prominent feature among the traffic

grades, and least marked among the enginemen and permanent way men. Transfer between

railway companies led to some competition between different managements. Movement

from station to station was clearly an essential and customary feature of life on the railways.57

Having secured employment, it was common practice for many grades of employee to be

moved from place to place, particularly in the early years of the industry when new

extensions were opened.58 Some kinship families in York moved on more than one occasion

between other working-class terraces before settling in St Paul’s or Railway Terraces, and a

few relocated with the same railway job or another transferable skill such as joiner,

wheelwright or agricultural implement maker. Most railway workers lived close to their jobs

in the stations, depots and workshops.59 The large villa residences of the professional and

55 M. Yasumoto, The Rise of a Victorian Ironopolis: Middlesbrough and Regional Industrialisation

(Woodbridge, 2011), p. 101. The composition of migrant streams also could vary according to destination; see

M.B. White, ‘Family migration in Victorian Britain: the case of Grantham and Scunthorpe’, in D. Mills and K.

Schürer (eds), Local Communities in the Victorian Census Enumerators’ Books (Oxford, 1996), p. 267.

56 Many engine-drivers nationally were recruited from the north-east area of industrial expertise (McKenna, The

Railway Workers, p. 152. Williams noted in his biographical work on Railway Swindon written at the outbreak

of World War One that most railway officials, clerical staff, journeymen, and highly-skilled workmen were

imported from other industrial centres, and that labourers and the unskilled were recruited from villages around

the town: A. Williams, Life in a Railway Factory (1915, London, 2012), p. ix.

57 Kingsford, Victorian Railwaymen, p. 55. For the occupational structure of one railway town, see Drummond,

Crewe, pp. 26 – 33.

58 Kingsford, Victorian Railwaymen, pp. 55 – 58.

59 Detailed characteristics of railway family demographics are provided in: Revill, ‘”Railway Derby”’, pp. 378 –

402.

175

business middle classes in Holgate Road before the coming of the railway became the homes

of the officer ranks of the railway workforce. Similarly in nineteenth-century Crewe,

superior railway officers inhabited large mansions.60 Residential areas such as St Paul’s and

Railway Terraces built from the 1870s were much more monotonous streets for the working

class. The railway workforce, however, included such a diverse mix of lower- and middle-

class status that even the most high-status areas of a district in some Victorian cities could be

dominated by the 1870s by railway employees.61 New arrivals into middle-class large villa

residences found themselves amongst an already mature urban industrial community.

Hodgson found in Holgate Road the influx of a new community separate from the old core

nucleus between 1861 and 1871. He charted occupation of the Holgate Lodge estate, a

magnificent villa, once occupied by Henry Thompson, uncle of Sir Harry Stephen Meysey-

Thompson, chairman of York and North Midland Railway Company and then chairman of

the North Eastern railway. It was also occupied by Charles Todd Naylor, a prominent York

merchant with income from money lent on railway speculation.62 Clearly Holgate streets had

come to accommodate people from the full economic spectrum of the railway world.

Railway Community

Railway employment formed a distinct occupational community in a Victorian society which

valued connections between work and wider social life. People knew and interacted with

each other in a variety of both work-based and non-work-based social activities. These

people shared particular institutions and social practices, and had a common culture,

language, vocabulary and life experience. They were joined by a sense of common purpose,

and also by strong rivalries and mutual mistrust between grades and departments in the

industry. Some grades of staff, particularly engine drivers and guards, workshop artisans,

station masters and administrators, were held in high regard as ‘respectable’ Victorian

society.63 Ties developed between railway families. Intermarriage between railway families

60 Drummond, Crewe, p. 24.


62 G. Hodgson, A History of Holgate (in five parts): Part Four Nineteenth Century Holgate (York, 1999), p. 4.

63 Revill, ‘”Railway Derby”’, p. 379. Their respectability was based on the rigorous selection process for

engine-drivers, and their rewards were high. They required qualities of endurance, some mathematical skill, and

some literacy; see McKenna, The Railway Workers, pp. 151 – 152. McKenna notes that their pride in their

craft, sense of responsibility and attachment to their engines surpassed all other considerations: McKenna, The

Railway Workers, p. 174, and F. McKenna, ‘Victorian railway workers’, History Workshop, 1 (1976), p. 26.

176

provided strong social bonds. Marriage patterns within the Derby railway workforce were

distinctive, with a high degree of intermarriage between the families of carriage and wagon

workers, and between locomotive department workers. Marriages of railwaymen as a

percentage of total marriages can be used as a measure of community cohesion. Marriage of

groom to father-in-law appeared to be the most important occupational relationship in

marriage in Derby.64

The working-class tenants of St Paul’s Terrace took an active interest in both local and

national politics. In the general election of 1895 an open-air meeting was held in the street in

front of the committee room of John Butcher, Conservative party candidate. The York

Herald reported he had a ‘magnificent’ reception.65 He asked the meeting to return him to

Parliament as a member of a Unionist government. He said that Lord Rosebery, the current

Prime Minister who had favoured social reform but had been anti-socialist, had failed to

attend to questions affecting the working population. Mr Butcher was supported at the

meeting by Mr Whitaker of Dublin ‘because [Mr Butcher] carried the flag of the union.’ He

had been commissioned by fellow nonconformists in Ireland to come to York in opposition to

Home Rule. Their watchword was to be: ‘Plump for Butcher and no Home Rule.’66 This

candidate for the Conservatives was successful in the forthcoming election. During the

previous administration the two Liberal MPs for York, Alfred Edward Pease and Frank

Lockwood, had addressed meetings from the window of a resident of St Paul’s Terrace, Mr

T. Malthouse, a railway engine driver.67 A former Liberal party candidate, Mr McKay, had

addressed a meeting at the Locomotive Inn in the Terrace.68

For detailed historiography of nineteenth-century railways in Britain, see T.R. Gourvish, Railways and the

British Economy 1830 – 1914 (London, 1986).

64 Revill, ‘”Railway Derby”’, pp. 391 – 392.

65 Y.H., 11.7.1895.

66 John Butcher was elected to parliament. The Conservatives led by Lord Salisbury in alliance with the Liberal

Unionist Party won a large majority over the Liberals led by Lord Rosebery. The Liberal Unionists resisted any

dilution of the Act of Union. York had usually returned one (or two) Liberals to Parliament, but the dissensions

in the Liberal Party over Home Rule led to the loss of one of the seats in 1895 (Brooks, ‘Victorian and later

York’, p. 332). Drummond notes that the majority of nonconformists in ‘Railway’ Crewe supported Irish Home

Rule: Drummond, Crewe, p. 141.

67 Y.H., 21.6.1892.

68 Y.H., 8.6.1882.

177

Interest in local politics was aroused in the residents of St Paul’s Terrace when communal

issues were at stake. In 1881 donations were requested to help fund the enlargement of the

buildings of the National Day School in St Paul’s Terrace. The increased attendance of

children at the school had prompted the proposal to accommodate an additional 200

scholars.69 Over the next few months several fund-raising events were held. Needlework and

plants were on offer, and two concerts were sung by the St Paul’s Musical Society. One

bazaar held in aid of the school extension was attended by the Lord Mayor and Lady

Mayoress and the Dean and Archdeacon of York.70 A meeting of the ratepayers of the

Terrace held in Wilton Street Chapel opposed a licence being granted for a public house

nearby, and a resolution that a memorial be drawn up praying that the license be refused was

carried unanimously.71 Doubtless this was a reflection of a Methodist persuasion of the

neighbourhood.

Working practices and industrial relations played a part in the railway community in Holgate.

There were only 11 strikes on the railways between 1830 and 1870, occurring during times of

financial difficulty for the railway industry and during waves of general labour agitation.

Most strikes were defeated. In almost all cases the strike was localised to one grade, so that

generally the railway could continue to operate with little interruption. The strategy of the

railway companies in the face of industrial dispute was to divide and rule. This ploy was

possible because of the large number and variety of grades, some of which could carry out

the functions of others during a crisis. The employees tended to act as though each grade was

independent of the rest, and the company then dealt with each grade separately. The

company could encourage division between employees in different grades and on different

railways, and also between pacifists and militants in the same grade. Militants could be split

from pacifists by offering inducements or gratuities to loyal employees, and by bringing into

the workforce men unaware of the nature of the dispute.72 The largest strike occurred on the

North Eastern Railway in 1867.73 The terraces of Holgate were central to this dispute, when

69 Y.H., 30.9.1881.

70 Y.H., 16.12.1882, 13.1.1883 & 23.2.1883.

71 Y.H., 21.8.1880.

72 Kingsford, Victorian Railwaymen, pp. 64 - 77.

73 In the early years of the industry, the hours of work were unrestricted and lengthy, with a minimum allowance

for sleep; no provision was made for Sunday relief or holidays (McKenna, The Railway Workers, p. 161).

Provision for old age and retirement was slender but did exist for a few workers. Clerks and station masters by

178

1500 men walked out with demands of a 10-hour day and enhanced pay. The directors of the

company refused to accede to the demands of the engine drivers and firemen, who promptly

submitted their notices. Tensions could run high in the community as management then

brought in men from manufacturing and mining districts to maintain the service, and for this

reason lives in Holgate were disrupted with little tangible benefit.74

The railway workers of St Paul’s Terrace were witness to, and indeed in some cases were

responsible for, fatal accidents on the railway.75 Three smiths working on the lines near York

station ran across the line after waiting for two shunting engines. They had failed to see a

passenger train, driven by William Shaw of St Paul’s Terrace, which ran over one of them.76

John Hague of the Terrace, assistant guard on a train in York station, witnessed a fatal

accident in which a passenger fell between a carriage and the platform edge when the train

was coming to a halt.77 A 15 year old apprentice at the railway paint shops, Alexander

McTurk, and son of a railway guard of St Paul’s Terrace, tripped while running home across

the railway lines and suffered a fatal rupture of the liver.78 And Joseph Stabler, a 16 year old

1870 could benefit from superannuation funds, but for the majority of the workforce old age meant dependence

upon their own efforts at life assurance or those few friendly societies which had pension benefits (Kingsford,

Victorian Railwaymen, pp. 19 – 28). See also P.S. Bagwell, The History of the National Union of Railwaymen

(London, 1963).

74 Some details of the strike of 1867 are chronicled in the York Herald, eg The Apprehended Strike of 20,000

Engine Drivers and Firemen, Y.H., 16.3.1867; North Eastern Railway Half-Yearly Report, Y.H., 10.8.1867;

Richard Dean, ‘until very recently in the employ of the North-Eastern Railway Company, and one of the men

who left the employ of the company without giving notice’ was found guilty of violent assault upon Henry

Nicholls who ‘had lately entered their service as an engine driver’, Y.H., 18.5.1867.

Many more peaceful disputes on the railway remained at the negotiating level in the form of petitions and

memorials. The right to petition the directors of a railway company was established early in the history of the

industry and was acknowledged throughout by the companies. These petitions were frequently limited to one

district or locality, and it was not until after the trade union came into existence that a memorial signed by all the

railway grades was presented (Kingsford, Victorian Railwaymen, p. 70).

75 The risk of injury and even death was particularly high among railwaymen. Many railway accidents were

caused by tiredness. Compensation in the early days of the industry was inadequate. Permanent disability

resulting from an injury was compensated with a small lump sum possibly with medical expenses. The

dependents of men who met with fatal accidents received some consideration in the form of funeral expenses

and employment of the orphans and occasionally the widow (Kingsford, Victorian Railwaymen, pp. 154 – 165).

76 Y.H., 1.6.1875.

77 Y.H., 27.11.1878.

78 Y.H., 28.9.1881.

179

fireman on a train driven by Thomas Malthouse of Holgate, witnessed the death of a ten week

old baby carried by its nurse and struck by the train at a level crossing.79

Many settings existed in which railway workers met and got to know each other outside

work, often church and chapel membership. Leisure differences existed between clerical and

artisan membership, white-collar workers appearing to embrace sport, music and drama more

readily than artisans. Public houses were meeting places for friendly societies and trade

union branches. Railway workers with financial security and sufficient leisure enjoyed non-

utilitarian pastimes together. The organisation of many leisure activities mirrored

departmental structures, reinforcing rivalries and competition rather than communal

solidarity. Employers holding key positions in the structure of the company favoured

workmen from their own region, creating tensions between regions within the industry.

Promotion and success could depend on the activities of a few senior supervisory and

managerial staff. Railway employees could dominate working men's clubs and privileged

membership of licensed railway men's clubs engendered separateness.80 The York Railway

Institute was one such select organisation. It was opened in 1889 under the direction of

Henry Tennant, General Manager of the North Eastern Railway.81 Alcohol was prohibited on

the premises during the tenure of Tennant, a Quaker and stalwart of the temperance

movement. The Institute usurped and replaced the Railway Tavern in Queen Street, York,

thereby removing at least one source of temptation from the employees of the nearby

Locomotive and Wagon Works. Peak membership stood at 1515 in 1891, possibly about a

third of the workforce of the offices, station and works of the North Eastern Railway. The

Institute provided facilities for instruction and improvement through a library and reading

room, lectures, a bank, and a smoke and billiards room when few such facilities existed

elsewhere in York.82

79 Y.H., 8.10.1879.

80 Gant, ‘Railway villages’, p. 63.

81 Henry Tennant argued against a ten-hour working day on the railway, giving evidence before a Select

Committee that ‘the public demand [for] train services and facilities … would place intolerable burdens upon

the railway companies if the hours of the men were limited to ten hours per day’ (McKenna, The Railway

Workers, p. 167).

82 H. Murray, Opportunity of Leisure: The History of the York Railway Institute 1889 – 1989 (York, 1989).

180

Many social activities were associated with the church, including football and cricket clubs,

drama and musical clubs. Wesleyan Methodism was central to workers with an artisan

engineering background. This religion often held sway in communities with an ethos of

working-class solidarity. Whilst not all adults attended services, most sent their children to

Sunday School, were acquainted with leading members of the chapel hierarchy, and played

their part in activities organised by the chapel.83 The Wilton Street Wesleyan Methodist

Chapel in Holgate, built to house the Methodist Young Men’s Class established in 1862, was

itself opened in 1872. On Good Friday in 1885, the ninth annual conference of the ‘Railway

Servants’ Religious Association’ was held in the chapel. Railway Signal informed its readers

of progress of the Association reported at the conference in numerous villages and towns, at

which ‘souls had been sought and won, and praise given to God’.84 Railway companies

provided some support and provision for education and religion. Some companies

established schools or made donations to other schools attended by their employees’ children.

Similarly some companies provided churches or supported other churches and religious

organisations.85

Finally, there is little knowledge of domestic discord between the families of these Holgate

streets. Reported crime in St Paul’s Terrace was of a rural and petty nature. The York Herald

reported the prosecution of offenders for stealing pears from a garden on Holgate Hill, cruelty

to some emaciated pigs kept in a stye with no bedding and in freezing temperatures, and

damage to a poplar tree.86 Somewhat more serious was a fight in the Terrace between a jilted

lover and the young lady’s new man, and the case of Richard Barnes, a middle-aged married

man of St Paul’s Terrace, who was sentenced to prison for one month for ‘exposing his

person before some females in Mount Parade’.87 But the most serious case of all between

1873 and 1900 was the dumping of a dead newborn baby wrapped in newspaper on the

83 H. McLeod, Class and Religion in the Late Victorian City (London, 1974), p. 282.

84 Railway Signal, III (1885), p. 102. Strong evangelical emphasis on personal salvation was similarly the most

notable feature of nonconformity in ‘Railway’ Crewe: Drummond, Crewe, pp. 133 – 152.

85 Kingsford, Victorian Railwaymen, pp. 73 – 74.

86 Y.H., 18.8.1875, 1.2.1876 & 10.4.1877.

87 Y.H., 2.1.1875 & 3.8.1877.

181

doorstep of a house in the Terrace. Aaron Clark, a sawyer on the railway, returned from

work at eight o’clock one evening to find the bundle on his steps.88

Family History

The final paragraphs of this section on the community of Holgate highlight the history of one

particular railway kinship family in an attempt to address some of the research questions

posed at the outset of this thesis. The Malthouse family moved into the Holgate area of York

with the railway workforce and ultimately settled in St Paul’s Terrace. Thomas Malthouse

was born in 1828 in Ripon, North Yorkshire. He began his working life as an agricultural

labourer and lived in 1841 in a small village seven miles or so west of Ripon, where as a

young man he lodged with the large nuclear family of a stonemason and his five children.

Thomas Malthouse had no siblings or kin or other known connection in this village.89 His

move there was part of a stepwise migration within a rural society.

This young man evidently had the aptitude and opportunity to rise from the ranks of the

unskilled agricultural labourers. By the age of 23 years he had returned with a wife to his

home town and established himself as a master agricultural implement maker employing four

men. This may have been a retrograde step in a migratory pathway, but it was a progressive

step as far as earning potential and his family were concerned. At this time he lived in an

extended household, but the 1851 census return is the only point in time we can find that he

did so, or indeed that his household employed a servant. His elder brother George lived with

him in the agricultural engineering business partnership and they employed a young

apprentice too. George remained in Ripon in this business venture for at least the next

decade, but Thomas took his transferrable mechanical skills and family in the next step of a

migration. He left no other branches of the Malthouse family in the town of his birth. The

prospect of economic opportunity was the pull, and the next step in the journey was

Manchester, where his first son was born. The draw in fact was the railway boom, and in

particular the North Eastern Railway in York. The family does not appear to be a link in a

chain migration at this time, and there were no close relatives with the same surname in York

from whom the family could find assistance.

88 Y.H., 26.3.1874.

89 The agricultural township of Laverton was home to 192 people in the census of 1841; there were no other

individuals with the surname of Malthouse in the township at the time.

182

Thomas Malthouse’s first rung in the ladder at York was as a railway engine fitter and the

family moved to Oxford Street in the suburb of Holgate. This was a working-class terrace

where the majority of the bread-winners were employed by the railway. The family was

nuclear in 1861 with four young children. Career progression was relatively rapid. Thomas

had risen to engine driver within the next ten years, and the household had moved to St Paul’s

Terrace. His eldest son had followed in father’s footsteps and enrolled as an engine fitter by

the age of 17 years. St Paul’s Terrace proved to be the final step in this migration, but not the

final stage in Thomas’s economic ambitions. He moved along the terrace within the next few

years and his nuclear family came to occupy two adjacent houses, initially as an engine driver

still with his wife and four children.

Thomas continued to occupy one of these two houses in the final years of his engine-driving

railway career, his children having left the parental home. He remained there with his wife

but no lodgers or servant at the time of the census of 1891, but had vacated the house next

door in St Paul’s Terrace for his middle son and his daughter-in-law. This son was a

shoemaker and his wife a boot-dealer assistant. The eldest son had moved a few doors down

the terrace into a different property. His career moves in railway employment had also been

upwards, following his father’s progression to engine driver. Thomas had retired from this

job at the end of the century, but he had reverted to occupy both his two former houses in the

terrace.90 His wife there in old age had taken on the family shoe-shop business, and they had

been rejoined by their third and youngest son who had also enrolled into the ranks of engine

fitter. He had been in the meantime lodging for a time with a railway guard and his wife in a

railway community in Doncaster. Their eldest son by this time had moved to nearby

Salisbury Terrace in Holgate, and their middle son to run the Locomotive Inn at the end of St

Paul’s Terrace. Thomas died in 1901, leaving to his wife and children income from his estate

including rentals from his properties.91

The life and trajectory of Thomas Malthouse highlight several aspects of the migration into

the railway community of Holgate in York, and kinship networks. He left the networks of a

90 Directory for 1881 – 1882 of the City of York (London): Malthouse Thomas, boot and shoe dealer, 51 and 52

St Paul’s Terrace; Kelly’s Directory of the North and East Ridings of Yorkshire with the City of York 1897

(London): Malthouse Thomas, boot warehouse, 52 St Paul’s Terrace.

91 Will of Thomas Malthouse registered at the District Probate Registry of York on 24 December 1901; gross

value of estate £984; he bequeathed to his wife ‘the rents and profits of his real estate’.

183

small market town for a better life in the exodus from rural Victorian England. His migratory

path was stepwise, but no kin followed in his wake. He arrived in his final destination of St

Paul’s Terrace with no preceding related kin to ease his arrival. However, his children

remained in the immediate neighbourhood. His three sons followed father in the railway

industry. His railway career was successful, fostered possibly by his experience as a skilled

engineer. From humble beginnings as an agricultural labourer in a rural village where there

lived no immediate family, he died a man of property in an urban railway community

surrounded by close kin.

Walmgate

This section begins with a brief review of the effects on families of the economic and

political events in Ireland and England that precipitated the mass migration of the Irish during

the potato famine of the mid-nineteenth century. It moves on then to a summary of

immigrant Irish communities in York and some other English towns and cities, and finally

examines in some detail the evidence found in contemporary sources concerning these

immigrant families in the Walmgate district of York. In this last section the focus lies on

how well Irish kinship families integrated with the host indigenous population, and how far

they remained alienated from their community.

The Irish Potato Blight and its Aftermath

The economic trends of the industrial revolution had led the Irish to lean more on agriculture

than manufacturing. The country had not been industrialised, and the population subsisted

entirely from the land it occupied.92 Agricultural employment, as it was understood in

England, was not an option for the Irish peasantry. As a result the poor were particularly

vulnerable to harvest failure. Pre-famine Irish families were typically large and extended as a

consequence of higher fertility than the English. The deepening poverty of the Irish

labouring and smallholding families has been put down to subdivision of land, early marriage

and large families.93

92 Ó Gráda notes that industrial development was slow in the south of Ireland, and suggests Ireland’s ‘under’-

industrialisation may be explained at least in part by poor natural resource endowments and high energy costs

(C. Ó Gráda, ‘Did Ireland ‘under’-industrialise?’, Irish Economic and Social History, 37 (2010), p. 117).

93 C. Ó Gráda, The Great Irish Famine (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 20 – 25 & 65.

184

The potato crop failed totally during the Irish winter of 1846 to 1847, when starvation was

most intense. There was an integrated mass movement of tens of thousands of desperate

people out of Ireland to America or to Britain. The response of the Irish landlord to his

unproductive unprofitable tenants was to evict them by force. Some landlords pursued

wholesale clearance of their land. The impact of the famine showed striking regional

variation, and local responsibility was weak in those areas least equipped to fend for

themselves.94 The main determinant of emigration was the policy of landlords rather than

influence of the state. A large proportion of small tenants often made a source of a high

emigration rate, since poverty implied that the population was not in a position to leave. A

bill legalising outdoor relief and transferring the destitute to the Irish poor law and poor rates

was enacted in June 1847. The only hope of solvency the landlords then saw was to

eliminate the destitute from their land. Their solution was to use emigration to supplement

eviction. 95

Crossing the sea to Great Britain had been a familiar experience for thousands of Irish in the

past. For centuries they had gone to work in the harvest, crossed a few times a year to deal in

cattle, and more recently found labouring work in the docks and canals, railways, factories

and mills. By the 1830s seasonal migration was a well-established feature of Irish rural life.96

The broad pattern of harvest migration depended upon alternative opportunities for

94 S.H. Cousens, ‘The regional pattern of emigration during the Great Irish Famine, 1846-51’, Transactions of

the Institute of British Geographers, 28 (1960), p. 119. The North and West represented the two extremes: the

North suffered least, but at least half the population in the West were paupers during one of the famine years.

The main support for the North came from the landlord class. In the West the population was dense and the

resources poor. See also S.H. Cousens, ‘The regional variation in emigration from Ireland between 1821 and

1841’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37 (1965), p. 15, and S.H. Cousens, ‘Regional

death-rates in Ireland during the Great Famine’, Population Studies, 19 (1960), pp. 55-73.

95 C. Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849 (London, 1962), pp. 205, 71 & 296.

96 Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger, p 270; Ó Gráda, The Great Irish Famine, p. 8; J.H. Johnson, ‘Harvest

migration from nineteenth-century Ireland’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 41 (1967), p.

97. The 1841 Census shows that 57,000 migrants crossed to England each year. This figure had dropped by the

end of the nineteenth century to an annual migration of 19,000 temporary migrants. The number of Irish

resident in Britain on a temporary basis may have been larger than the number identified as seasonal harvesters.

See D. Fitzpatrick, ‘A peculiar tramping people: the Irish in Britain, 1801 – 1870’, in W.E. Vaughan (ed.), A

New History of Ireland (Oxford, 1989), p. 621. Pre-famine Irish migration to Britain is also discussed in A.

O’Dowd, Spalpeens and Tattie Hokers: History and Folklore of the Irish Migratory Agricultural Worker in

Ireland and Britain (Dublin, 1991); R-A Harris, The Nearest Place that wasn’t Ireland: Early Nineteenth

Century Labour Migration (Iowa, 1994); and R. Swift (ed.), Irish Migrants in Britain 1815 – 1914: A

Documentary History (Cork, 2009), p. 8.

185

agricultural work. Much of this seasonal employment was to be found in England, and this

was how men from the remote west of Ireland made the contacts and connections that

subsequently attracted the famine emigrants. It afforded the workers the ability to settle in

unfamiliar surroundings and the opportunity to convert to permanent emigrants who could

take non-agricultural work. This traffic declined after the famine as railways gained access to

more remote parts of the country and population decline reduced the number of workers

interested in this work.

From February 1847 a headlong flight from Ireland gathered speed as the devastation of the

potato became apparent. More than 85,000 people in 1847 sailed from Irish ports mainly in

the poorer south and west.97 They often arrived in family groups. The starving Irish docked

at three main points, Liverpool, the Clyde, and the ports of south Wales. The brunt of the

invasion was borne by Liverpool. There were daily sailings to Liverpool from Dublin, and

one or two sailings each week to Liverpool from Drogheda, Youghal, Sligo, Cork, Waterford

and Belfast. Liverpool had possibly the worst housing conditions of them all even before the

deluge of destitute Irish.98 Having landed in Liverpool and elsewhere, immigrants moved

into condemned uninhabited houses. They brought with them an epidemic of fever of

enormous proportions. Ireland before the famine was subjected to universal overcrowding.

The poor were frequently infested with lice, and conditions for the rapid spread of lice and

typhus were ideal in the famine of the winter of 1846 to 1847.99 The workhouses were

already overcrowded, and many people admitted were suffering from exhaustion, diarrhoeal

illness or typhus. An Irish fever bill enacted in April 1847 placed the responsibility of fever

patients onto relief committees. They were given the authority to erect temporary fever

hospitals.100

97 Ulster also suffered from the potato blight and experienced emigration in the 1840s; see D.M. MacRaild and

M.T. Smith, ‘Emigration and migration, 1600 – 1945’, in L. Kennedy and P. Ollerenshaw (eds), Ulster Since

1600: Politics, Economy and Society (Oxford, 2013), p. 154.

98 Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger, pp. 270 – 272.

99 Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger, pp. 191 & 277.

100 Bill to make temporary provision for treatment of destitute persons afflicted with fever in Ireland, 1846. The

Act made provision for ‘the Board of Guardians … to procure a building for the purpose of receiving destitute

poor persons affected with fever … and to provide such nourishment , bedding, clothing, medicines … as may

be requisite …’.

186

Irish famine immigrants landed in a hostile world in English ports. Immigrants often bring

with them some technical skills and knowledge which the indigenous population does not

possess; the influx of Irish famine victims, by contrast, brought less civilised and unskilled

people into the community.101 Any antagonism felt by the English was rooted far back in

political and religious history. The destitute Irish moved on from the ports into England,

Scotland and Wales, where they were met with more hostility. The English working man had

an excuse to distrust the Irish. At a time when regulation of wages did not exist and trade

unions were in their infancy, the Irish were a competitive source of cheap labour. English

and Irish labourers frequently refused to work together. These harsh economic differences

were inflamed further by religious intolerance. The inhabitants of English industrial towns

tended to be Protestant, and anti-Catholic quarrels and even riots occurred.

Of the few sympathisers of the Irish plight, the Society of Friends, the Quakers, set up a

central relief committee in Dublin, which reported on the extent of suffering.102 In York the

citizens refused to allow the building of a fever hospital. James Hack Tuke, prominent

Quaker and member of the York board of guardians, erected a wooden shed in one of his

fields which was filled immediately with destitute fever patients.103 Typhus spread easily

among these people because of their close contact. They had originated from small primitive

settlements in close proximity with each other, and in England they gravitated to the Irish

slum. In Ireland the famine was followed by depopulation and a rise in average living

standards. The emigration rate dropped in the century after the famine, and the proportion of

those born in Ireland peaked in England by the end of the nineteenth century.104

101 See Parliamentary Paper: Third Report of the Commissioners for inquiring into the condition of the poorer

classes in Ireland 1836. The preface to the report states that ‘There is not in Ireland the division of labour that

exists in Great Britain; the body of the labouring class look to agricultural employment, and to it only, for

support …’.

102 Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends, Transactions of the Central Relief Committee of the

Society of Friends during the famine in Ireland, in 1846 and 1847 (Dublin, 1852).

103 Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger, p. 282. York Guardians resolved to erect ‘a temporary building as a

hospital for the poor Irish.’ (York Explore, Board of Guardians minute books: York Poor Law Union and

Workhouse records May 1846-Oct 1847, Ref no. PLU/1/1/1/6). See ‘Irish migrants in York: The case of the

McAndrew family, 1847’, in Swift, Irish Migrants in Britain, p. 82, for a description of Tuke’s humanity in his

attitude to a destitute family. Typhus was known colloquially as the ‘Irishman’s itch’ (D.R. Green and A.G.

Parton, ‘Slums and slum life in Victorian England: London and Birmingham at mid-century’, in S.M. Gaskell

(ed.), Slums (Leicester, 1990), p. 52.

104 Ó Gráda, The Great Irish Famine, pp. 58 – 62.

187

Traditional historiography suggested there was a reaction by the Irish against everything

linked to the time before the famine. The original analysis of Irish emigration during and

after the potato famine portrayed an influx of embittered peasants fuelled by a mutual Anglo-

Irish hatred. Hostility was seen as a reaction to the inept handling by the British government

of the crisis and deep-rooted political and religious antagonism. This account is now viewed

as ‘simplistic and emotive’, when politicians of the 1840s were judged by standards of a later

age.105 Ó Gráda tells us that the immediate impact on Irish popular politics was resignation

and despair. A widespread opinion was that suffering would have been alleviated by a more

humane British government. Separation from England became an attractive solution in Irish

politics and Fenian radicals, a major force in the 1860s, pressed for Irish sovereignty.106

Woodham-Smith held the view that the children of the immigrants in the Irish slums of

English towns and cities paid a terrible price for their forced mass migration, and that few of

the poor who escaped the famine achieved prosperity and success.107 This vantage point

would suggest that the immigrants were outcasts from their host society and that they

survived by taking refuge within their own closely-knit Irish communities. Many of the Irish

who fled the famine and made their way inland into England never escaped from destitution,

but others or their descendants achieved prosperity and success.108

Irish Famine Immigrants in York

The ecological disaster in Ireland and the political events that unfolded in its wake had

unleashed an exodus. The fate of Irish immigrant families in some English towns and cities

is discussed now, beginning with York.109 The first wave of famine immigrants began to

arrive in the City in late 1846 shortly after the outbreak of the first devastating attack of

potato blight. Most of them came from western Ireland, and from Connaught in particular,

105 Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger, pp 411 – 412; Ó Gráda, The Great Irish Famine, p. 57, 3 & 36.

106 Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger, p. 394; Ó Gráda, The Great Irish Famine, p. 64. Anglo-Irish political

relationships, Fenianism, and the ‘Irish Question’ of Home Rule for Ireland, are summarised in Swift, Irish

Migrants in Britain, pp. 171 – 188.

107 Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger, p. 207.

108 For a general historiography of the Irish in Britain, see Swift, Irish Migrants in Britain, pp. xvii – xxiii.

109 York does not figure, however, in the top 20 cities in Britain in 1851 or 1871 with the highest concentrations

of Irish immigrants (‘The “top twenty” Irish towns in Britain, 1851-1871’, in Swift, Irish Migrants in Britain, p.

35.)

188

comprising the counties of Galway, Sligo, Mayo, Roscommon and Leitrim.110 The place of

birth of most of the Irish immigrants in York in the 1851 Census was not recorded (60%), but

most of the others gave their origins in Mayo (41%), Sligo, Roscommon, Dublin, Galway,

and Cork (3%).111 Finnegan found that the birthplaces of many of the children born of these

immigrants suggest that they had stopped first in Liverpool, Manchester or Leeds.112 Many

of the married immigrants registered soon after their arrival in the 1851 Census seemed to

have left their wives and children at home. They arrived by the spring of 1847 in large

numbers, estimated at about 45 people a day, and gravitated to parishes in the south east of

the City. The Hungate area, heavily populated by the Irish immigrants, contained part of the

parishes of St Saviour, All Saints Peaseholme, and St Cuthbert.113 Most of the Irish here

were concentrated in St Saviour parish, and in Long Close Lane and Hope Street which lay in

St George parish abutting the City walls and the stagnant River Foss.

Particular parishes housing the Irish occupation tended to favour certain employments. The

majority of farm workers lived in the parishes of Minster Yard with Bedern, St George and St

Dennis, and even greater concentration of particular workers occurred within the parishes

themselves.114 Unskilled casual labour within York, and agricultural employment in the

surrounding villages, was one attraction to the Irish immigrants. The cultivation of chicory

was particularly associated with these workers, and the emergence of industrial chicory

110 The demographics of the Irish immigrants in the early censuses after arrival appears in: Finnegan, Poverty

and Prejudice, pp. 69 – 97.

111 Mayo had formerly provided 10,000 seasonal migrants to Great Britain in 1834: J Johnson, ‘Harvest

migration’, pp. 100 – 101. In Mayo predominantly but also in Sligo and Roscommon there was mass flight

upon failure of the potato crop. The poorest group here were occupiers of a small area of land, who were able to

raise passage money by realising a crop of oats immediately after the potato failure. This failure was followed

by a swift spate of evictions (Cousens, ‘The regional pattern of emigration’, pp. 123 & 128). See also ‘Seasonal

migration from Mayo, 1893’, in Swift, Irish Migrants in Britain, p. 23.

112 Finnegan, Poverty and Prejudice, p. 33. Step-wise migration was a common experience of the Irish arrivals;

see for example Swift, Irish Migrants in Britain, p. 9.

113 V. Wilson, Rich in all but Money: Life in Hungate 1900 – 38 (York, 2007) is an oral history of life in

Hungate in the early years of the twentieth century. It was published to coincide with an excavation of the area.

114 Details of both male and female Irish occupations appear in: Finnegan, Poverty and Prejudice, pp. 98 – 109.

Farm workers concentrated in the parish of St George.

189

cultivation coincided with the arrival of the first immigrants.115 The Irish chicory harvesters

were already familiar with the district before the 1840s, following a well-established tradition

of seasonal migration to the fields. Seemingly they returned to York permanently when

forced to leave their native Ireland. York offered no other occupational temptation to the

immigrants. About 70% of Irish male workers were concentrated in the six occupations of

farm worker and field labourer, labourer, army, ordnance survey, glassblower and

bricklayer's labourer. Farmworkers and labourers accounted for most of the working men,

and many of the soldiers at York barracks or attached to the ordnance survey were also

Irish.116 Many labourers worked in surrounding villages, some several miles from the City.117

Reluctant to allow their farmworkers settlement or irremovability, many rural landlords

deliberately provided no housing for their workers in the countryside. The immigrants were

often hired in families or groups, often on a piecework basis, as the seasons dictated. Chicory

allowed cultivation also by women, and in 1851 about a third of the women in the Irish

community were employed. Most of them were employed as farmworker and field labourer,

servant, charwoman and laundress, dressmaker and seamstress, hawker, nun, pauper or

beggar. All of the women in York employed as agricultural workers were in fact Irish. The

censuses between 1841 and 1901 portray the lowly status of the majority of Irish immigrants

throughout the period.

Significant changes occurred in the first wave of migration between 1841 and 1851 in the

social structure of York's Irish contingent. With the arrival of the famine immigrants, the

proportion of people in social class four trebled, and halved in the higher social classes.118

The Irish had a lower occupational status than those born in the City. Immigrant family sizes

were larger than those in the indigenous community. The proportion of small families of up

to three people fell sharply after 1851, while the proportion of households between 10 and 15

115 Finnegan, Poverty and Prejudice, pp. 30 – 33. Finnegan notes that the village of Dunnington was the main

centre for chicory cultivation. See also ‘Irish chicory workers in York, 1901’, in Swift, Irish Migrants in

Britain, p. 67.

116 Swift notes that the Irish historically were attracted to garrison towns such as York (Swift, Irish Migrants in

Britain, p. 8).

117 Men employed on a casual basis were obliged to live within walking distance of their work. The uncertainty

of casual work was exacerbated when the number of jobs available could vary considerably on a daily basis

(Gaskell, Slums, p.10).

118 See ‘Occupations’, in Finnegan, Poverty and Prejudice, pp. 98 - 109.

190

people was greater in 1851 than in any of the other censuses in the next twenty years. There

was after the first post-famine census a drop in the proportion of lodgers in households and in

the number of households who received them, possibly a sign of deepening poverty.119

Throughout the famine immigration into York large numbers of people shared the same

insanitary overcrowded homes.

The greatest degree of distress caused by poverty among the Irish immigrants of Walmgate

undoubtedly occurred in the late 1840s. The greatest increase in applications for poor relief,

however, occurred not immediately after the famine, but a decade and more later.120 Most

applications then related to sickness and pregnancy. The reason for the lag in applications

probably relates to the laws of settlement, since in 1851 applicants and their families could be

removed to their place of legal settlement in Ireland if they had not been resident for five

years in the York parish. The fear of removal diminished by 1865, when the period of

removability was reduced to a year. Immigrants applied for relief only rarely on the grounds

of desertion, widowhood, old age, absence of husband or orphanhood, Finnegan argues

because of the mutual generosity the Irish gave to those whose needs were greater than their

own.

Finnegan’s study of the 10,000 Irish immigrants who lived in York between 1840 and 1875

used the demographic characteristics set out in the census enumerators’ returns from 1841 to

1871. She maintained that the York Irish population was replaced constantly by fresh

immigrants, the two censuses after 1851 being dominated by new arrivals from Ireland.

Apparently famine victims, once arrived in the City, attracted successive waves from the

limited number of counties in Ireland from which the vast majority of the refugees came.

The Irish community almost completely replaced itself at least once in every decade, so few

remaining to be recorded more than once. Finnegan found in Victorian York at each census

119 Dyos and Reeder make the point that ‘few indexes of poverty and overcrowding could conceivably be more

significant than the inability to sublet even sleeping room.’ (H.J. Dyos and D.A. Reeder, ‘Slums and suburbs’,

in H.J. Dyos and M. Wolff (eds), The Victorian City: Images and Realities, volume 1 (London, 1973), pp. 359-

388. These authors define slums as ‘… overcrowded houses “unfit for human habitation.”’ The worst slums in

Victorian London were generally found in places where large houses were vacated by the middle classes. They

were mostly occupied by second or later generation Londoners with a high turnover in inhabitants. With time

the streets became more matriarchal, abundant in children and deficient in fathers. Oral histories from Northern

industrial towns testify to the stigma of overcrowded homes; see P. Atkinson, ‘Family size and expectations

about housing in the later nineteenth century: three Yorkshire towns’, Local Population Studies, 87 (2011), p.

13.

120 Finnegan, Poverty and Prejudice, pp. 110 – 115.

191

that the majority of Irish people appeared for the first time. She argued that there was large

scale disappearance of entire families.121 The findings in two particular streets in this study,

extended across the entire second half of the nineteenth century, do not support this

conclusion. On the contrary, some of the largest kinship family households and their progeny

could persist across the decades whilst others left the neighbourhood.

Finnegan found that little marital integration took place, even between the Irish immigrants

and their social equals. Mixed marriages fell by more than a half after the first famine

immigrants arrived, and most of those which did occur took place outside the main areas of

immigrant occupation.122 There were very few mixed marriages in the early years in any

yard or street that was heavily colonised by the Irish. The dilution of surnames in Long Close

Lane and Hope Street, however, in the second half of the nineteenth century may be

explained at least in part by marriage of brides to men with less common surnames. By 1871,

less than half of the Irish community in York had been born in Ireland, the vast majority

being the children of recently arrived Irish parents. Irish-led households continued to arrive

after this date in Long Close Lane, and by the end of the nineteenth century the community in

the Lane was dominated by those of Irish descent but born in the City itself.

The ‘ghetto’ in York was a mobility barrier, its inhabitants continuing to live in the Irish

neighbourhood regardless of how many times they might move their address.123 The Irish

frequently moved not far from one lodging house or tenement to another. They continued to

monopolise particular streets, courts and alleys, such as Long Close Lane and Hope Street,

until the streets were finally demolished. Only then were the Irish communities dispersed.

They were cleared in 1928 and 1929, and the list of tenants to be rehoused contains many of

the Irish names found in the censuses of waves of famine immigrants.124 By this time, it was

largely the case that formerly mixed communities had become predominantly Irish in

descent.

121 Finnegan, Poverty and Prejudice, p. 158.

122 Finnegan, Poverty and Prejudice, p. 155.

123 The terminology of Irish ‘ghettoisation’ has been called into question, since the Irish did not concentrate in

‘ghettos’ to the exclusion of other ethnic groups: Swift, Irish Migrants in Britain, pp. 29 – 30. Close networks

of family relationships were not unique to Irish slum neighbourhoods; see also: Gaskell, Slums, p. 9.

124 Finnegan, Poverty and Prejudice, p. 62; Wilson, Walmgate Story, p. 16.

192

Irish Famine Immigrants in Other English Towns

Finnegan’s pioneering study of the Irish in York can be contrasted with subsequent works on

the Irish in other locations. Her analysis of the first 30 years after the arrival of immigrants

looked largely at individuals in isolation and attempted no family reconstitution. Further

work has added considerable breadth and depth to an appreciation of Irish settlement and

community formation. Smith and MacRaild have shown a close association between

surname and place of origin in Irish culture.125 A comparison of the mid-nineteenth-century

population of Ireland with the late nineteenth-century Irish-born population resident in

England shows that the names of Irish immigrants were representative of the counties in

Ireland from which they were derived. The effects of the potato famine on population

structure were minimal.126 Local studies of the immigrants in towns other than York have

dispelled the assumption that the Irish were a homogeneous community. Herson has shifted

the emphasis from Irish famine immigrants counted individually on settlement in English

towns to the experience of these people in families.127 The key point of his studies is that the

picture of Irish instability and mobility derived from the enumeration of individuals in

censuses in reality masks substantial family stability. At the level of the Irish family, distinct

choices were made which were reflected in individual lives. Many of the Irish families of

Long Close Lane and Hope Street likewise showed persistence down the generations.

John Herson’s study of the Irish in Stafford identified the total population of immigrants that

settled long-term in the town in the nineteenth century and then closely examined

representative groups. The reconstruction of family trees draws a picture of family attitudes

and responses. Family groups from the same locality continued to arrive in Stafford in the

1850s till 1870s, indicating a strong chain process of migration. Many of these families were

related, and they continued to intermarry after their arrival in the town. For those families

125 M.T. Smith and D.M. MacRaild, ‘Nineteenth-century population structure of Ireland and of the Irish in

England and Wales: an analysis by isonymy’, American Journal of Human Biology, 21 (2009), p. 283; M. Smith

and D.M. MacRaild, ‘The origins of the Irish in Northern England: an isonymic analysis of data from the 1881

census’, Immigrants & Minorities, 27 (2009), p. 152.

126 J.H. Relethford and M.H. Crawford, ‘Anthropometric variation and the population history of Ireland’,

American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 96 (1995), p. 25.

127 Herson’s critique of Finnegan’s methodology and data appears in: J. Herson, ‘Migration, ‘community’ or

integration? Irish families in Victorian Stafford’, in R. Swift and S. Gilley (eds), The Irish in Victorian Britain:

The Local Dimension (Dublin, 1999), pp. 156 - 181.

193

which chose to stay in Stafford, the strategy they adopted, whether conscious or otherwise,

was to integrate into their surroundings. This process was rapid after 1871, when the first

generation migrants from the famine had died. There was thereafter a phenomenon of ‘ethnic

fade’.128 The children of famine immigrants showed significant upward occupational

mobility beyond their labouring parents.

Families were grouped into those that settled for at least ten years but ultimately left Stafford,

families that put down deep roots and intermarried with the English, and families that failed

to integrate or moved away.129 The landless labouring families that left Ireland before the

famine probably arrived with an inbuilt attitude of fatalism and an urge to stay within the

barricades of Irish communities. Those labourers who arrived during the famine and whose

origins were similar to those that arrived before it had more varied family trajectories.130

They tended to live close to each other and offer lodgings to other family members. Kinship

links were significant in fostering key life opportunities. Those labouring families that

arrived in Stafford after the famine, some of whom had lived elsewhere in the meantime,

were more diverse than their predecessors. Herson suggests that these late arrivals were more

committed to settling in Stafford. The proportion of families that integrated successfully into

Stafford grew larger the later they arrived. Families that stayed for at least ten years in

Stafford but then ultimately left always tended to have experienced harsh circumstances in

their homeland and brought with them attitudes of hostility towards authority and outsiders.

Other approaches, for example a view of the impact of the mass arrival of impoverished

immigrants on South Wales, Teeside and Tyneside, have taken a more regional approach to

the effects of the famine.131

128 See also A. O’Day, ‘A conundrum of Irish diasporic identity: Mutative ethnicity’, Immigrants & Minorities,

27 (2009), p. 317. Kerr describes a slum of mid-twentieth century Liverpool where most of the residents had

originated in Ireland two generations ago and still recognized their roots: M. Kerr, The People of Ship Street

(London, 1958), p. 4.

129 J. Herson, Divergent Paths: Family Histories of Irish Emigrants in Britain, 1820-1920 (Manchester, 2015),

pp. 59 – 77. See also J.D. Herson, ‘Family history and memory in Irish immigrant families’, in K. Burrell and

P. Panayi (eds), Histories and Memories: Migrants and their History in Britain (London, 2006), p. 210.

130 Herson, Divergent Paths, pp. 97 - 132.

131 P. O’Leary, ‘A regional perspective: the famine Irish in south Wales’, in Swift and Gilley, The Irish in

Victorian Britain, p. 14; P. O’Leary (ed.), Irish Migrants in Modern Wales (Liverpool, 2004); M. Chase, ‘The

Teeside Irish in the nineteenth century’, in P. Buckland and J. Belchem (eds), The Irish in British Labour

History (Liverpool, 1993), p. 47; F. Neal, ‘Irish settlement in the north-east and north-west of England in the

mid-nineteenth century’ in Swift and Gilley, The Irish in Victorian Britain, p. 75. The argument not to study

194

Intermarriage was the most important factor promoting integration between settled Irish

families and the host society in Stafford. The early marriages after arrival were mainly Irish

unions. However, the proportion of mixed marriages rose to about a half in the two decades

after 1865 as children born locally to Irish families began to marry. These people by the late

nineteenth century were indistinguishable in many ways from the indigenous population.

Women were powerful forces in the fortunes of many Irish families in Stafford. They tended

to dominate the home environment and to instil their spiritual and aspirational values into the

family. Children could experience anger and alienation in later life. Herson suggested that

the violence and aggressive behaviour frequently observed in these immigrant families may

in some cases have been the result of the psychological trauma inflicted by their flight from

Ireland.132 The part played by religion (and Catholicism in particular) varied in practice

among the families who settled in the town. On the one hand, the strength of the church

struggling within a traditionally hostile setting was boosted by the arrival of a new

congregation; on the other hand, any militant Irish could threaten the church’s quest for

acceptance in English life.133

Lees has concentrated on Irish families in Victorian London.134 She has studied their family

structures together with their earning capacities and their integration into a new community.

The Irish famine immigrants usually formed nuclear households with various adjustments to

meet family and communal needs. Men on the whole stayed with their families. Immigrant

parents in London usually spent the rest of their lives with one or more of their children.

Extended families, drawn from either the husband’s or the wife’s side, were unstable

temporary structures. A shortage of houses and the desire to help new arrivals expanded the

towns in isolation is made in J.D. Marshall, ‘Why study regions?’, Journal of Regional and Local Studies, 5

(1985), p. 25.

132 Herson, Divergent Paths, pp. 16 – 17.

133 Herson, Divergent Paths, p. 281.

134 L. Lees, Exiles of Erin: Irish Migrants in Victorian London (Manchester, 1987). The largest population of

Irish famine immigrants settled in London. Henry Mayhew provided a contemporary oral history of mid-

Victorian Irish street folk in the capital, describing poverty and humanity. See H. Mayhew, London Labour and

the London Poor: A Cyclopaedia of the Conditions and Earnings of Those That Will Work, Those That Cannot

Work, and Those That Will Not Work (1861-62, London, 1967), E.P. Thompson and E. Yoe (eds), The Unknown

Mayhew: Selections from the Morning Chronicle 1849 – 50 (London, 1973), p. 24 and J. Turton, ‘Mayhew’s

Irish: the Irish poor in mid-nineteenth-century London’, in Swift and Gilley, The Irish in Victorian Britain, p.

122.

195

number of extended and multiple families during periods of rapid immigration. In turn kin

habitually took in children or the old as the need arose. Migrants depended on kin and

friends to find work. Few Irish households at any point in time included extended kin, but

many would over the course of the family cycle. This situation differed somewhat from the

immigrant Irish in Birmingham, where extended mutually-supportive extended families could

occupy an entire lodging house.135

The Irish in London were highly mobile, such that Lees found it impractical to track their

movements over time. She chose instead to chart the changes in occupational groups

between the censuses of 1851 and 1861, in an attempt to assess social mobility and the life

cycle. As in rural Ireland, the urban Irish family economy relied upon income from women

and children’s work as well as the father’s, but the opportunities for work were vastly

different in the City. Home and workplace were no longer one and the same, menfolk were

generally absent from the home during the day, and the family now had to buy all their

clothing and food. London did not have one dominant industry. The Irish settled

predominantly in the central industrial area of London.136 Transportation, construction and

food distribution relied on casual labour, and Irish migrants were limited to these casual or

sweated jobs, particularly in the shoemaking and tailoring trades. The Irish were

concentrated to an extent in these industries, but the largest group of Irishmen worked as

general labourers in 1851. For many at the bottom of the scale of income, hawking or street

selling was an occupation of last resort. And finally the home itself could generate income,

when lodgers paid some rent particularly when the wife of the household was unable to

participate in the labour force. Irish workers could earn anything from 3 or 4 shillings a week

to slightly over £1 at mid-century, when rents for a household averaged probably around 3

shillings. Poverty for the London Irish was therefore an inescapable fact of life, even for the

regularly employed but especially so for those with irregular earnings. Lees found that the

profile of jobs improved somewhat for both men and women during the decade after 1851,

135 Lees, Exiles of Erin, pp. 130 – 137. C. Chinn, ‘ “Sturdy Catholic emigrants”: the Irish in early Victorian

Birmingham’, in Swift and Gilley, The Irish in Victorian Britain, p. 52.

136 The Irish did not concentrate entirely in towns and cities; in provincial Cornwall they settled in hamlets

where housing was cheap and tin-mining the major occupation (L. Miskell, ‘Irish immigrants in Cornwall: the

Camborne experience’ in Swift and Gilley, The Irish in Victorian Britain, p. 31). See also P.M. Solar and M.T.

Smith, ‘Background migration: the Irish (and other strangers) in mid-Victorian Hertfordshire’, Local Population

Studies, 82 (2009), p. 44; and M.T. Smith and D.M. MacRaild, ‘The Irish in the mining industry in England and

Wales: evidence from the 1881 census’, Irish Economic and Social History, 36 (2009), p. 37.

196

with a rise in the proportion of men holding white collar jobs and a fall in the proportion of

general labourers and construction workers.137

Most Irish households of three or more people in Victorian London needed the earnings of

wives and children in order to survive, and most could not afford to live when the children

were too young to work unless the husband was fully employed.138 Those wives who listed

an occupation at a census with several small children at home tended to be married to

unskilled labourers. Only when most of their children were earning money did Irish wives

tend to find work. Women’s work was primarily in domestic service and the clothing trades.

Children as young as 10 listed an occupation to the census enumerator, and they began to

leave home after the age of 15 years. They boarded with other families or worked as servants

and gave their earnings to their own family for a time.

The Irish ethnic community provided boarding for those without the means to set up their

own household, the single, and immigrants. Each new arrival in a chain migration could

receive aid from those who had arrived before him and return it to migrants who arrived later.

With time in this community, there was some small shift in social mobility in Lees’ study of

London. The majority of employed Londoners held skilled jobs at the start of her study and

relatively few were unskilled, but these proportions were reversed in the Irish in the parishes

she sampled. Although some could slip down the social scale as they were forced out of a

trade, others could move into a higher ranking occupation over a lifetime.139 Over the middle

decade of the nineteenth century a process of integration with the host population had started

as the Irish began to accumulate property, invest in small business, and exchange casual for

regular jobs.140

The segregation and integration of the Irish in Stafford changed over time. In the immediate

aftermath of the famine, the majority of the immigrants were segregated, but by the end of the

nineteenth century most had integrated into the local society. Families whose origins were in

137 Lees, Exiles of Erin, pp. 88 – 118.


139 Lawrence McBride has chronicled letters sent from Victorian Manchester by Irish immigrants growing in

wealth and respectability in their industrial dyeing and cleaning works: L.W. McBride (ed.), The Reynolds

Letters: An Irish Emigrant Family in Late Victorian Manchester (Cork, 1999).


197

the labouring class integrated in the main into Stafford’s working class, and a minority

showed distinct upward social mobility. But for most individuals the simple struggle for

existence dominated their lives, with little regard for their origin or fate. Studies of other

regions have emphasised the demoralisation and disadvantage experienced by Irish

immigrants.141 More successful middle-class Irish immigrants in Victorian Liverpool became

leaders of the working-class community and experienced fierce commercial, sectarian and

political rivalries.142 The model of segregation or assimilation of the Irish immigrants,

characteristic of most of the above studies, however, has been challenged, Hickman shifting

the emphasis from settlement of the migrants into the social context of the host population.143

The remainder of this chapter places the Irish immigrants of York’s Long Close Lane and

Hope Street into the social and cultural context in which they found themselves.

Alienation and Integration of the Irish in York

Grinding poverty gave the tenants of much of Walmgate no option but to live in slum

houses.144 Press reports of the inhabitants often mentioned their lowly occupations, among

them bottle blowers, hawkers of coal and oranges, and Irish labourers in the chicory fields

around York. Although the householders of Long Close Lane and Hope Street in the census

years before 1861 were largely semi-skilled workers, and even though the very occasional

more skilled individual lived in these slums, these dwellings generally were headed by

labourers of one sort or another. They were predominantly agricultural in nature up until the

last quarter of the century, and thereafter urban or industrial in occupation. The York Herald,

the weekly newspaper of the times, reveals many instances of alienation and integration

141 R. Swift and S. Gilley (eds), The Irish in the Victorian City (London, 1985); Swift and Gilley, The Irish in

Britain. The debate over the nature of Irish communities in British towns and cities is explored further in I.D.

Whyte, Migration and Society in Britain 1550 – 1830 (London, 2000), pp. 165 – 172.

142 J. Belchem, ‘Class, creed and country: the Irish middle class in Victorian Liverpool’, in Swift and Gilley, The

Irish in Victorian Britain, p. 190.

143 M.J. Hickman, ‘Alternative historiographies of the Irish in Britain: a critique of the segregation/assimilation

model’, in Swift and Gilley, The Irish in Victorian Britain, p. 236. See also C. Pooley, ‘Segregation or

integration? The residential experience of the Irish in mid-Victorian Britain’, in Swift and Gilley, The Irish in

Britain, p. 71 and D. Fitzpatrick, ‘A curious middle place: the Irish in Britain, 1871 – 1921’, in Swift and Gilley,

The Irish in Britain, pp. 10 – 59.

144 Descriptions of life in slum neighbourhoods are provided in: A. August, The British Working Class, 1832 –

1940 (Harlow, 2007); S. Meacham, A Life Apart: The English Working Class 1890-1914 (London, 1977); and

R. Roberts, The Classic Slum: Salford Life in the First Quarter of the Century (London, 1971).

198

between the Irish residents themselves, between them and their English neighbours, and

between the community and the authorities who tried to impose some measure of regulation

and control.145 Attention is turned now to these issues.

Hope Street was home to many more household heads of the same surname across the half

century than Long Close Lane. The new influx of these householders from York and Ireland

declined in both streets by the last quarter of the century, and the Irish kinship family head

arrivals peaked in Long Close Lane in 1851. The new Irish kinship family head arrivals

peaked ten and twenty years later in Hope Street, and these householders with surnames new

to the street continued to arrive until at least 1891. Most first arrivals of these families in

Long Close Lane originated from Ireland, but most in Hope Street originated from York or

elsewhere in Yorkshire. This pattern suggests that compatriots may well have been attracted

to live by preference in the same street as earlier arrivals from their own territory.

The proportion of related Irish people in Long Close Lane and Hope Street with the same

surname, such as parents and children, siblings or cousins, fell in the decades after the arrival

of the famine immigrants. This matches a rise in the proportion of indigenous individuals of

the same surname over the same period. A likely explanation of this trend is the arrival from

Ireland of related people with the same surname, and then their dilution over the century as

women married, bore daughters who intermarried in York and lost their parental surname, or

left the streets.

The largest influx of Irish householders of the same name occupied Long Close Lane soon

after the outbreak of famine in their homeland. Seven households led by Irish men and

women of the name of Brannon had newly arrived by 1851. In a selection of the largest

families in Long Close Lane and Hope Street, only one Irish household head had arrived in

the Lane by 1841 before the outbreak of blight in Ireland. Also, only one identified Irish

family arrived in Long Close Lane that had settled elsewhere in England after emigration

from Ireland, but a few Irish households arrived in the Lane with children who had been born

elsewhere in the City. This picture differs from the five largest families of separate

household heads of the same surname in Hope Street, most of whom had arrived by 1851

from elsewhere in York or wider Yorkshire. There is also the impression of chain migration

145 See A. Mayne, The Imagined Slum: Newspaper Representation in Three Cities, 1870 – 1914 (Leicester,

1993) for a critical appraisal of newspaper reports of slums in Birmingham in 1875.

199

of these prominent families in Walmgate, as Irish-born household heads of the same name

continued to arrive in Long Close Lane, and similar York-born heads in Hope Street until the

end of the century. The households of these prominent families exhibited transience and

mobility in their occupation of houses, particularly those of Irish extraction.146 About two

thirds of households were identified at only one census enumeration, but few heads of

household lived at the same identifiable house at more than one census. The two most

mobile households found in this thesis each lived in four different houses in the streets across

a forty year period. This mobility may signify little, however, for impoverished tenants with

few possessions, who may have been able to change address in the course of an afternoon.

The numbers of stable household heads of the same surname who remained on these two

streets for at least ten years increased across the half century, and this group of relatively

persistent households was always more numerous in Hope Street than in Long Close Lane.

Generally about a half of the surnames of householders remained in each street for at least a

decade in the final quarter of the century. Households tended to leave the streets for a short

period of time, however, only to return at a subsequent census, and the parishes of wider

Walmgate taken together would probably therefore show an even higher level of these long-

stay family groups.

Daily life in Long Close Lane and Hope Street was punctuated by sporadic episodes of

violence, often ignited by sleights, petty jealousy, family feuds and mob culture and fuelled

by drink.147 Assaults were often directed against policemen.148 Michael Brannan, ‘a savage

character’, bit one policeman on the leg while breaking down the door of a neighbour, but

was overpowered and taken to the police station in a cart with his legs tied. The same

‘savage’ and an accomplice, Thomas Langan, a few months later were separated by a

policeman from kicking and beating a fellow Irishman. On descending the stairs of the house

146 The population of slums tended to be transitory, given the constant influx of new arrivals and the lure of

permanent or better employment elsewhere (Gaskell, Slums, p. 2). Meacham notes that the very poor moved

most often, condemned by their income not to move far (Meacham, A Life Apart, pp. 42 – 44).

147 Criminal activity by the Irish settlers in Great Britain is considered in Swift, Irish Migrants in Britain, pp.

101 – 106. The percentage of Irish prosecutions in York in 1851 to 1871 was consistently more than twice their

proportion of the population. Overcrowding was a catalyst for violence in other working-class communities (L.

Davidoff, M. Doolittle, J. Fink and K. Holden, The Family Story: Blood, Contract and Intimacy, 1830-1960

(Harlow, 1999), pp. 120 – 121.

148 The police, enforcing laws made by others, were generally mistrusted in working-class culture (Meacham, A

Life Apart, p. 18).

200

in Long Close Lane, Langan struck the officer over the head and shoulders with a poker.149

The police force in fact were reluctant to venture into the Lane on account of the Irish;

officers gave up the pursuit of two Irishmen, ‘rogues and vagabonds’, who ran into the street

with some timber stolen from a foundry yard.150 Extreme and premeditated violence between

neighbours or strangers could erupt following a sleight or minor argument. One such battle

in Smith’s Yard in the Lane ended with a conviction for manslaughter in April of 1851, when

James Flannary was bludgeoned to death with a large stone, a sweeping brush, ropes and a

whip loaded with lead and nails. The trial heard that the argument began on the walk back

from work in the chicory fields near York, when James Donnallin ‘had words’ about James

Flannary’s daughter. Not only workmates, the Donnallins had formerly lodged with the

Flannerys in Long Close Lane. Hostilities were resumed in force the following morning,

when Flannary entered the Donnallin household where his daughter had just been assaulted

and paid for his intervention with his life.151 Following a similar minor spat, Alexander

Swann of Long Close Lane battered to death Joseph Shepherd, a tailor from a neighbouring

village visiting the City to enjoy the ‘Whit Monday fair’. During a dance in a beer house,

Swann’s ‘sweetheart’ gave her shoes to Shepherd for safe keeping. His refusal to give one of

them back provoked Swann to inflict fatal head injuries. Poverty on occasion was the

backdrop to smouldering disputes between neighbours, as for example when Robert Dixon

repeatedly attacked the Webster family nearby. He kicked their door down, then a month

later attacked mother and daughter in their own home. Dixon’s defence in court was his

poverty and long ill health and Mrs Webster’s repeated abusive language that had led to his

exclusion from a sick club.

Domestic disputes and family feuds were all too common in the Lane. Robert Foster in 1852

was evicted by a policeman from his mother’s house in the Lane after he had called round to

dispute his father’s will. And John Hardcastle of Long Close Lane went during the night to

his parents’ house to wake his father and viciously assault him after they had met for a drink

149 These two cases in which Michael Brannan appeared are listed in: Y.H., 6.8.1853 & 16.6.1855.

150 Y.H., 26.5.1849.

151 Y.H., 19.4.1851 & 26.4.1851. Mr Mann, a surgeon, was called and found James Flannary had a fractured

skull. A widower with eight children, he died some time later, but not before he had a conversation with his

killer. James Donnallin said: ‘Now, Jemmy, did I strike you? The deceased said: Yes you did, over my head.’

201

in the Bird-in-Hand pub the previous evening for a drink after work.152 The family feud

between the Naylors and the Copleys boiled over in the Lane in 1843 when Charles Naylor

assaulted Mary Ann Copley while their two daughters fought each other. Simmering feuds

and harboured grudges always had the potential to erupt into a pitched battle with little

provocation. In one such fight in a public house in Long Close Lane on a Sunday evening,

the flashpoint was a glass of ale. Anthony Battle and another Irishman entered the pub,

where there were already drinking six Irish and two Englishmen. Battle was handed a glass,

at which two Irish brothers leapt across the table and a fight erupted with fists, tongs and a

poker. Some sadistic pride was taken in these armed combats. A deputation presented itself

‘in battle array’ at a door in Britannia Yard in the Lane, and the occupants were ‘called upon

to come out and have a fair fight’. They rose to the challenge, armed with a shovel and a bar

of iron. ‘So jealous are they of their prowess’, said the York Herald, ‘that they frequently

come to blows’.153

Poverty reduced some individuals to debt, petty theft, begging and prostitution.154 The Court

for Relief of Insolvent Debtors in 1830 heard the case of Thomas Hill, carpenter of Long

Close Lane, and Rose Hannan, a recent arrival with her parents to the Lane in 1849, was

prosecuted for begging.155 She told the court she sold sand. Others in desperation stole food

from their neighbours or small saleable items of little value. Alice Douthwaite was found

guilty of stealing a petticoat and an apron from Elizabeth Harrison, and Bridget Hannam, an

Irish girl 12 years of age, stole a waistcoat, scarf and breastpin which she then attempted to

sell.156 She asked the court for forgiveness, which was refused. Food stolen for consumption

included some beef and bread and a sack of potatoes.157 And in a curious case, Henry

152 Swann’s, Dixon’s, Foster’s and Hardcastle’s cases are listed in: Y.H.,6.6.1846, 11.5.1844 and 8.6.1844,

26.6.1852 & 17.11.1855.

153 These fights are described in: Y.H., 29.4.1843, 29.11.1851 & 12.6.1852. The battle in Britannia Yard

aroused the following comment in the York Herald: ‘Scarcely a week now passes in which we have not to

record the occurrence of those disgraceful exhibitions which take place among the Irish population in this City,

and which prove so great a source of annoyance to the peaceable inhabitants.’

154 See F. Finnegan, Poverty and Prostitution: A Study of Victorian Prostitutes in York (Cambridge, 1979).

155 Y.H., 9.10.1830 and 22.9.1849.

156 Y.H., 9.1.1847 and 24.2.1849. ‘The magistrates exercised their discretionary power, as the prisoner was

under fourteen years, and committed [Bridget Hannam] to the House of Correction for one month to hard labour

…’

157 Y.H., 6.1.1849 and 5.5.1849.

202

Donallin and Christopher Crump ‘picked up’ a purse containing money in York railway

station. Having argued about how the spoils should be divided, Donallin preferred a charge

against Crump for having stolen money from him.158 These impoverished criminals were

unable to pay any fine the court might impose, and were sentenced more often than not to

some months imprisonment with hard labour. Poverty could even on occasion reduce an

Irish family to a fatal delay in seeking medical assistance, who resorted in desperation after

the death to contacting the relieving officer of the parish only for the purpose of obtaining a

burial certificate.159

With these acts of gratuitous and extreme violence and antagonism, however, there are just as

many examples in the press of an integrated mutually-supportive society.160 There were

many small acts of neighbourliness and kindness between the families, particularly when

women were involved and children were at risk. Mothers called upon neighbours in

desperate circumstances. When a neighbour was called at 4am to help four year old William

Varley, he was found already to have died. Miriam Marshall, living alone in a house in Long

Close Lane and previously delivered of four illegitimate children, went in labour to a

neighbour’s house. Jane Lambert’s landlady called a neighbour out of her home to help

Jane’s sickly newborn illegitimate baby, and the neighbour remained with the baby all night.

In another altruistic act, a man returning home from chapel leapt into the River Foss to save a

drowning boy. Worried mothers and neighbours often called for medical attention, but

usually to no avail. Miss Marshall’s neighbour in fact summoned a nurse and no less than

three surgeons, but the mother died of exhaustion. Thomas Jenkinson, a 12 month old child

of Long Close Lane, died of scalds after pulling a tin of hot water onto himself from a table,

despite the best efforts of his mother, a neighbour and a surgeon. Some element of neglect is

apparent in many of the child deaths which came to the attention of the York press, not least

with children left unattended. A three year old child in the Lane died from burns when his

clothes caught fire in his grandmother’s absence from the room.161 And Jane Lambert was

158 Y.H., 17.1.1852.

159 Y.H., 22.9.1860.

160 Meacham draws a distinction between ‘rough’ and ‘respectable’ working-class families and neighbourhoods,

labels sometimes attached to whole streets or blocks of streets and those who lived in them. These traits could

divide the generations within families (Meacham, A Life Apart, pp. 26 & 57).

161 The cases of William Varley, Miriam Marshall, the boy in the Foss, Thomas Jenkinson, and the child dead of

burns are detailed in: Y.H., 25.9.1847, 19.8.1848, 24.3.1849, 24.3.1838 & 6.6.1846.

203

committed for trial for manslaughter at York assizes when her newborn baby died after being

taken outside to be baptised for six hours on a cold damp day.162 Benevolence and

compassion to women and children could extend to the judiciary of York also, as for example

when the coroner, police constable and jury at an inquest into the industrial death of the sole

bread-winner of a family donated from their own pockets money for his widow and four

orphaned children.163

A source of spiritual solace, religious observance lay near the surface of life in Walmgate in

the early nineteenth century. It was also a source of friction which could land people in

court. The York Herald thought it newsworthy to report that 40 men had been gambling in

Long Close Lane on the Sabbath, and a youth was charged with having played pitch and toss

on a Sunday afternoon. Catholicism was a matter to be taken seriously by the Irish. During a

trial of two notorious Irish adversaries in the Lane, Anthony Battle and Michael Brannan, one

of the witnesses complained that he had been called a ‘turncoat and Protestant’. Finally, two

Irish Catholics of Long Close Lane came to blows in their house after the blessing of the bells

at St George’s Catholic Church. Sarah McCander, Bridget Durkin’s landlady, brought home

a bottle of holy water, with which she taunted Durkin. Durkin seized the bottle and smashed

it, broke a window, threatened her landlady with a shovel and assaulted her. Harmony was

restored in court when Durkin offered to repair the damage.164 There are, however, very few

press reports of religious tension in these Walmgate streets, and possibly the struggle to

survive took precedent over the scriptures.165

162 Y.H., 25.1.1845. ‘After returning home the child became unwell, and had a severe fit and continued to

convulse until the following morning, when it died. … The child was buried and exhumed on instructions of the

coroner. Post-mortem by T. Laycock, who attributed the cause of death to congestion of the brain which might

have been produced from exposure to cold or privations of nourishment.’ The history of convulsions and the

congestion of the brain in fact suggest that the baby had been shaken.

163 Y.H., 13.11.1952. Meacham suggests that factory owners viewed their workers as ‘members of a race apart’.

The responsibility for industrial disease and accidents may have fallen upon those who suffered them:

Meacham, A Life Apart, pp. 130 & 134.

164 These three cases with religious undertones are detailed in: Y.H., 20.4.1850, 4.12.1852 & 29.6.1850. The

youth playing pitch and toss on the Sabbath was discharged by the bench, but the Lord Mayor remarked that

‘such proceedings on the Sabbath could not be tolerated, and that had someone older been captured, severe

punishment might have been imposed.’

165 McLeod, Class and Religion, p. 283. ‘… The destitute were generally too absorbed in the struggle to remain

alive to look for other-worldly compensations, and if they thought of the Creator at all they were likely to blame

Him for their sufferings.'

204

There is nothing in the cases described to suggest hostility, or indeed welcome, between

neighbours because of their ethnic origin. Two large, colourful and illustrious Irish families

of this community, the Brannons and the Calpins, may be singled out for individual study.

They reveal features of both persistent alienation from their new hosts, and notable

integration with their adopted country. Both had remained relatively concentrated in

Lancashire by the census of 1881 and spread inland to an extent from their port of entry at

Liverpool after their immigration. The Brannon family in 1881 was more widespread in

Great Britain than the Calpins, suggesting their presence may have predated arrival with

famine immigrants. This family stayed in Long Close Lane for in excess of fifty years, ten

branches inhabiting the Lane for variable periods of time. They often arrived with children

who had made the journey over with them from Ireland. One branch of his large family lived

at a different address at each census after 1851, but all within the Lane or in streets nearby.

The Calpin family households had descended mostly from a common ancestor in County

Mayo, whose two sons fathered offspring who arrived in Long Close Lane and Hope Street

by 1861. This family also occasionally left the streets only to return at a subsequent census,

occasionally moved into a similar house a short distance down the street, and occasionally

lived within a few yards of their parents or siblings.166 The Calpin family also remained in

the neighbourhood until well beyond the turn of the twentieth century.

Michael Brannon (of Irish descent and born in York in 1850) and his wife Ann made

numerous appearances before the York magistrates. Well into a career of disruptive petty

crime by February of 1875, the York Herald reported:167

Michael Brannon, hawker of Long Close Lane, who was on Saturday to have made his

38th appearance before the East Riding magistrates at York Castle, deputed his wife to

answer the charge of being drunk and disorderly in Gate Fulford. His better-half gave him

an excellent character, all but supping a pint too much now and then, but she added that if

166 See Chadwick in: Fourth Report from The Select Committee on Settlement, and Poor Removal; together with

the Minutes of Evidence taken before them 1847, p. 52. In the parish of St George (which included Long Close

Lane and Hope Street) 53 of a total of 176 residents had lived in their present house for less than one year.

Segregation of immigrant Irish communities, such as was found in Walmgate including Long Close Lane and

Hope Street, occurred in other towns and cities. Dennis, for example (Dennis, English Industrial Cities, pp. 221

– 233) found in Huddersfield that Irish segregation was more marked than concentration by occupation or skill

level within the working classes, and that this concentration permeated down to the level of courts and back

alleys behind the main streets. Members of immigrant minority groups were prone to move only over very short

distances, in contrast to indigenous people who were willing to move further afield in the city. The small Irish

population also concentrated in Leeds: T. Dillon, ‘The Irish in Leeds’, Thoresby Society, 16 (1974), p. 1.

167 Y.H., 1.2.1875.

205

he took her advice he would always be sober. The bench said that was indeed a

consummation devoutly to be wished, as Brannon had already spent a vast amount of

money in the luxury of fines, varying in amount from five pounds to as many shillings,

and extending over a period of more than 20 years. The dutiful wife triumphantly

reiterated that her husband was a good ‘un and an honest man, and so long as he continued

honest and did not disgrace her she would always willingly pay his fines. However much

the bench admired her fidelity, they expressed a desire to once more see Mr Brannon

personally, and a warrant was issued for his apprehension.

His anti-social abrasive way of life persisted, and a year later the press reported another

appearance in the magistrates’ court:168

Michael Brannon was charged before the Lord Mayor at the Guildhall yesterday with

being drunk and riotous in Long Close Lane. About 2:30 o'clock yesterday morning Sgt

Steel saw the prisoner throwing a quantity of pots into the street and breaking his

furniture. He was also threatening what he would do to his wife, who had taken shelter

from his violence in a neighbour’s house opposite. The officer prevailed upon the prisoner

to be quiet, but on returning a short time afterwards, accompanied by another constable,

they found that he had a knife in his hand, and were told that he had been threatening to

stab his wife. Steel seized him for the purpose of taking the knife from him, and received

a cut on the hand. A struggle ensued, in which the other constable assisted the sergeant,

and all three fell to the ground. The prisoner in the fall broke his arm, and was taken to

the hospital, where it was set. The chief constable informed the Lord Mayor that the

prisoner had been 36 times convicted, but as he had broken his arm he asked that he might

be leniently dealt with. He was discharged.

Notwithstanding Michael Brannon's rejection and alienation, the magistrates and police

evidently treated him with compassion, humanity, and even good humour. His violence had

been directed also against his wife, who seemingly had not begrudged him his intemperance

only a few months previously.169 The Calpin family arguably had some justification for

antagonism when corporal punishment of such unusual severity to attract the attention of the

local press was meted out on one of their kin, an eight-year-old schoolboy:170

On Thursday, at the York City police court, Sister Ellen Joseph, headmistress of St

George's Roman Catholic School, was charged with assaulting a child named Arthur

Calpin on June 20 last. Calling the boy from his seat, Sister Joseph told him to take off his

jacket and kneel down. Upon this being done she turned round to the other scholars and

said 'See boys and girls what I'm going to do to a boy who runs out of school.' She then

took a thick cane and beat him unmercifully across the back, legs, arms, hands and

forehead. There were 20 or 30 blows struck altogether. After she had finished thrashing

168 Y.H., 23.2.1876.

169 As main bread-winner, his desertion of thrift for alcohol could have put his entire family in jeopardy; see

Meacham, A Life Apart, p. 121.

170 Y.H., 15.7.1899.

206

the boy she made him kneel down again, beg her pardon, and say he would never run out

of school again, and after sending him to his seat, went up to him and asked him if he

wanted any more. Hannah Calpin saw the assault, adding that after the thrashing was

over, and Calpin had apologised, Sister Joseph said to him 'The Lord give me strength in

my arm to give you more'.

Sister Joseph was adjudged to ‘have acted from a mistaken sense of duty’, and was fined 20

shillings.171 The Calpins subsequently acquiesced to authority and integrated with local

norms to such an extent, however, that at the outbreak of the Great War, ten ‘sons’ enlisted to

serve overseas. This patriotism attracted the attention of the York Herald and the Daily Mail

in 1914, which reported that:172

The attention of his Majesty having been drawn to the fact that Mr and Mrs Calpin in York

have 10 Sons in the Navy and Army, Sir William Carrington has written that the king has

heard the fact with the deepest gratification, and sends his congratulations, and hopes that

you will convey the same, together with his best wishes, to them for success, health and

happiness in their noble career. They have also received the congratulations of the Prime

Minister.

Seven of these soldiers were indeed the ‘sons’ of Patrick (born in York in 1857 of Irish

descent) and his wife Sarah (Figure 84), but the other three were their cousins and an uncle.

All ten nevertheless regarded themselves as the ‘brotherhood’ of this integrated kinship

family.173

171 The Catholic Church provided parish provisions including schools, promoted by the Jesuits, the Franciscans,

and the Sisters of Mercy, to which Order Sister Joseph belonged: Swift, Irish Migrants in Britain, pp. 117 &

128. This case came to the attention of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. This

society, Dr Barnardo’s Homes and the Church of England Waifs and Strays Society, were established in the

second half of the nineteenth century (Davidoff et al, The Family Story, p. 123).

172 Daily Mail, September 1914.

173 These 10 soldiers (including Arthur the caned schoolboy) are highlighted red in Appendix 10. The

photograph of the Calpin family (Figure 84) is reproduced courtesy of the Daily Mail. Arthur was mentioned in

Despatches (Daily Mail, 24.3.2014).

207

Figure 84. Patrick and Sarah Calpin and their daughter Hannah

Family History

The research questions of this thesis can be explored with a more critical appraisal of the

history of the Calpin family in Long Close Lane and Hope Street (Appendix 10). The family

had migrated from their port of entry at Liverpool and concentrated in York. They had

integrated at least to the extent that many siblings had enlisted to fight for their adopted

country in the armed forces of the First World War. Michael and Bridget Calpin arrived from

Ireland as a childless couple in Long Close Lane in the 1850s and their 33 children and

grandchildren were all born subsequently in Walmgate. None of these descendants in fact

lived outside this slum district at any census, and forty years after their arrival 28 of their

progeny still lived in close physical contact with them in the same or adjacent streets. The

kinship bonds of this branch of the Calpin family were intimate.

Having found a house in Long Close Lane, Michael and Bridget Calpin moved only a few

yards into a different house at each subsequent census until their death at the start of the

twentieth century. They also never lived alone. There was never less than six people living

in their house at any census. Even in old age in their 60s, six middle-aged sons and daughters

shared the parental overcrowded house in Long Close Lane a few doors away from their

birthplace. Four sons had left the parental household to establish their own in the same or

208

nearby street in Walmgate, all when aged in their 20s and all when there were nine

individuals living in the house. Although the number of people in these households was

always large, they almost always remained nuclear. They homed no lodgers, and only one

household took in a boarder. One father of three babies in Hope Street accommodated his

mother-in-law on the death of his wife, and she subsequently took charge of a sole surviving

orphan. Three brothers with no dependents made another extended household.

Poverty and expedience were the driving forces behind these life events.174 Michael Calpin

was an agricultural labourer on his arrival from Ireland, and he remained in this job even into

old age. His wife Bridget never declared a job at a census enumeration. Her house always

contained several babies and infants from her early 20s into her mid-40s. Michael’s wage

from agricultural labour was the only household income in 1861, but thereafter children from

the age of about 15 years brought money into the house from industrial labour. No members

of this household progressed out of unskilled manual work. Likewise the four of Michael and

Bridget’s sons who formed independent nuclear households were usually the sole bread-

winners from bricklayers’ or builders’ labouring. Their grandchildren towards the end of the

nineteenth century joined the ranks of the impoverished working class of Walmgate, some of

them on the production lines of Rowntrees factory as chocolate, confectionery and gum

packers. Three groups of sisters brought in some income from employment in this factory

gained possibly through kinship links.175

Swaledale

Kinship Families

This chapter has explored some aspects of the communities of Holgate and Walmgate in

York that reacted and responded to mass immigrations in the second half of the nineteenth

century. By contrast, the community of Swaledale experienced mass out-migration and

174 Anderson explored these kinship families in the working-class cotton town of Preston in the nineteenth

century: Anderson, Family Structure, pp. 118 – 135. He found that kin were often responsible for getting a man

a job, that children weighed up advantages and disadvantages of maintaining a relationship with their nuclear

family and could break away if individual wages were high enough, that it was relatively easy to find

somewhere other than the parental home in which to live, and that children of the lower-paid parents were the

most willing to leave home.

175 P. Chrystal, The Rowntree Family of York: A Social History (Pickering, 2013) provides an account of the

Rowntree family and the social background of the factory culture and enterprise.

209

emigration over the same time-span. This thesis now turns its attention to kinship families in

this dwindling population.

The maximum population of Swaledale occurred in 1821, after a couple of decades of

growth, following which the decline in numbers was continuous and severe. The population

trends in Swaledale reflect a balance between farming and the slow demise of the lead-

mining industry. The men who extracted the ore from the mines came originally from

farming families, and their involvement in the industry eventually overshadowed agriculture.

Swaledale farmers in the middle of the seventeenth century began to engage in part time

mining, and within the next century their descendants were miners who engaged in part time

farming.176 Those farming communities within which lead mines were opened were

transformed into communities of miners, many of whom held small plots of land. Over a

third of the working population in 1851 gave their primary occupation as mining. Less than

half of this proportion saw themselves primarily as farmers, and a quarter of the farmers had

a second occupation. Twenty years earlier in the century half of upper Swaledale families

paid tithes on agricultural produce, and estimates suggest that over the nineteenth century up

to a half of lead-mining households had some sort of agricultural holding.

Most small farms were ably supported by the farmer and members of his family, helped by

extra hands at haytime. However, many smallholdings were too small even to provide for

one family, and part-time farmers sought additional employment and income. The farmers

and miners of Swaledale at mid-century were the least mobile section of the community.

Eight adults out of ten in 1851 were living within five miles of their birthplace and only 5%

came from beyond 25 miles. The majority of the people of nineteenth-century Swaledale

were born and raised in the dale. Agricultural labourers and farm servants were drawn from a

somewhat wider area than their employers, although rarely beyond 25 miles. Farm servants

were traditionally hired for a period of six months. These labourers could earn some extra

money by undertaking additional piecework, as did occasional workers hired by the day or

week. Men in mid-century Swaledale required economic viability before they married and

176 A. Raistrick and B. Jennings, A History of Lead Mining in the Pennines (London, 1965), pp. 229, 311 – 324,

451 & 471. The earlier history of Swaledale is reviewed in A. and J. Mills, ‘Assessing the impact of famine,

pestilence and the Scots on Swaledale and the North Riding in the early fourteenth century’, The Local

Historian, 48 (2018), p. 301.

210

marriage was uncommon before the age of thirty. The population at this time was skewed

towards the young, when 40% of the population was under the age of 15 years. 177

Almost everybody in Swaledale in the nineteenth century was a member of a kinship family,

in the sense that any individual with a certain surname was related by ancestral lineage or

marriage to numerous other people with the same name.178 The number of surnames in the

population of the dale fell progressively over the second half of the nineteenth century as the

lead mining industry collapsed, but proportionally less than the fall in the total number of

people. In other words, entire groups of people of the same surname disappeared, and the

brunt of this decline was born by larger rather than by smaller such groups. Smaller kinship

families grew in number in relation to larger kinship families. This relationship exists

between the decline in the adult population and the emigration or loss of kinship heads in all

four districts of the dale, namely Muker, Melbecks, Arckengarthdale and Reeth. Furthermore

the depopulation of the dale is attributable to a fall in the number of households. The

population decline affected fathers, whose numbers remaining in the dale tended to fall over

most of the period. The drop in birth rate across the dale in the second half of the nineteenth

century by about one third was greater than the national average.179 The most mobile

sections of the population were young men. In the Anglican parishes of Muker,

Arkengarthdale and Grinton, it appears that fathers who stayed in Swaledale were drawn

increasingly from the diminishing number or sizes of kinship families.

Rural depopulation clearly reduced the size of the kin component of the community left

behind in the dale. The demographics of kinship families differed in the various districts of

the dale and between each other. The fall in population may be accounted for by emigration

or reduced fertility, or a combination of both factors. Some emigration of entire families of

the same shared surname coupled with a fall in the birth rate of those families that chose not

to emigrate, would explain the findings. Alternatively diminished fertility possibly reduced

177 R. Fieldhouse and B. Jennings, A History of Richmond and Swaledale (1978, Chichester, 2005), pp. 157 –

158, 450 & 472.

178 Dominance of certain surnames was found also in Nidderdale, where inheritance practices were thought to

retain sons locally: M. Turner, ‘Distribution and persistence of surnames in a Yorkshire dale, 1500 – 1750’,

Local Population Studies, 54 (1995), p. 28.

179 C. Hallas, Rural Responses to Industrialization: The North Yorkshire Pennines 1790-1914 (Bern, 1999), p.

272. The decline in the rate of natural increase in the population due to the fall in birth rate occurred across

Northern England generally. The rate of natural increase declined in the dales from at least the 1830s.

211

family sizes and the number of kinship family households in the succeeding generations.

Emigration to other industrial areas of England or overseas may well account for at least

some of the population decline in the dale, the dispersal of kin family members to a more

prosperous future probably attracting further waves of family left behind. Falling family size

may go some way to explain these family trajectories. The mean household size of the

remaining families in all four districts fell, due to a drop in the average number of children.180

Baptisms per father tended to decrease in the first half of the century and increase in the

second half in the parishes of Arkengarthdale, Grinton and Reeth, and the converse seems to

have occurred in the parish of Muker.

Changes in landholding pattern may be explained by the responses of the agricultural sector

and the lead mining community to several economic and demographic pressures. Most

kinship families went into decline in the second half of the nineteenth century as the lead

industry collapsed, but some grew in size or migrated into the dale over this period. The

contrasts between and within these two groups throw light on the effects exerted by these

pressures. The five kinship families that showed the greatest decline in numbers of

household heads between 1841 and 1901 were chosen for study. These were the Alderson,

Harker, Metcalfe, Peacock and Raw families, the Aldersons showing the greatest drop in

number of about one half from their base of 80 heads in 1841. The fall in the number of

households of the largest kinship families in Swaledale was constant and relentless. Their

lives are compared with a larger cohort of eleven kinship families whose household heads

grew in number, although the magnitude of their growth fell far short of the magnitude of the

drop of those families in decline.

As the proportion of people born locally in the dale diminished in the second half of the

century, however, families who were most likely to remain tended to have some involvement

with agriculture. The small number of people who migrated into Swaledale generally were

attracted by the pull of demand for specific rural occupations.181 Some families that grew in

size in the half century in the dale in the main were established farmers of Muker district,

some lead miners mainly of Melbecks, and Reeth farmers. Steady increases in the number of

180 Change in infant mortality possibly may also have been a factor in mean household size; see A. Clark,

‘Family migration and infant mortality in rural Kent, 1876 – 1888’, Family & Community History, 6 (2003), p.

141.

181 Hallas, Rural Responses to Industrialization, pp. 275 – 277.

212

farming households and families engaged in skills, trades and crafts accounted for the success

of these kinships. They were adaptable people switching their professed occupation as the

needs arose, many with dual or even triple occupations. Unlike other kinship families that

tended to remain localised, they sometimes migrated from one district of Swaledale to

another. Some kinship families in this group originated in other northern dales and small

towns, or Westmorland.182 Staggered arrivals of household heads of the same kinship came

from the same place. We see in these kinship families mobility and possibly chain migration

of some new families, as well as adaptability in occupations and residence of many families

that prospered in the face of rural depopulation.

Landownership and Lead mining

The decline of the lead industry had marked effects on the landholding pattern in the dale.

Changes in fortune of kinship families in various regions can be explained in light of this

pattern and the fate of the industry. Holding of land was the key to family survival.183 The

predominant category of landowner in Swaledale during the nineteenth century was the

yeoman and small proprietor. The overall annual number of farm holdings held in the dale

shows a series of wide fluctuations, where peaks are interspersed against a background

trend.184 The maximum number of holdings occurred in 1824, coinciding with the greatest

population size during the century and a period of prosperity both in the lead mining industry

and agriculture. There was a gradual upward trend in the number of farm holdings up to

1870, following which there was relative stability until the end of the century.

The number of owned farm holdings of different sizes varied across the century (Figure

85).185 In the first two decades of the nineteenth century, the small farmer predominated in

Swaledale, the majority of these families holding less than 10 acres of land. From then on

182 Edmund Bogg, an observer of Swaledale in the early 1900s, remarked on this immigration: ‘There has been

an immigrant addition … of one or two quaker families from the neighbour valleys …’ (E. Bogg,

Richmondshire: An Account of its History and Antiquities, Characters and Customs, Legendary Lore, and

Natural History (Leeds, 1908), p. 359).

183 There were only four large aristocratic landowners in the dale in 1873, accounting for only about 2% of all

owners but holding 11% of the land, in total 8054 acres: Hallas, Rural Responses to Industrialization, p. 47.

184 The data and the trends are taken from Table 4.7, Hallas, Rural Responses to Industrialization, p. 64.

185 The data plotted in Figure 85 and other numerical data are taken from Tables 4.2 and 4.8, Hallas, Rural

Responses to Industrialization, pp. 54 and 68.

213

through the century, there was a shift towards larger holdings. These changes were felt by

1844, by which time the number of holdings of less than 10 acres had fallen by more than a

third and the number of holdings greater than 50 acres in size had risen by a half over a 20-

year period. The trend over the century was therefore a shift towards larger individual plots,

and most significantly, the number of small holdings fell in line with the declining

population.186 Clearly as kinship families declined in increasing numbers, those families that

remained lived off larger plots of land than their antecedents.

Figure 85. Annual number of farm holdings by size category in Swaledale

Enclosed land was either pasture or meadow for providing hay for livestock during the winter

months. Large enclosed meadows or pasture were shared among the whole township or a

number of tenants. Common land consisted of vast rough moorland wastes and cow pastures,

the latter shared as beast- or pasture-gates. Each beast-gate entitled the holder to graze a

specific number of stock according to the quality of the land.187 Beef and dairy farming

186 This trend was seen across the country as a whole; before the 1870s in England and Wales larger farms

increased in number at the expense of small farms, and this pattern was reversed in the 1880s (D.B. Grigg,

‘Farm size in England and Wales from early Victorian times to the present’, The Agricultural History Review,

35 (1987), p. 179).

187 Fieldhouse and Jennings, History of Richmond and Swaledale, pp. 142 – 151 & 466 – 468. See also ‘Farm

Layout’ in W.H. Long and G.M. Davies, Farm Life in a Yorkshire Dale (Clapham, 1948), p. 60. Most farms

had some enclosed meadow land, some poorer enclosed land, and rights of grazing on the open moor.

214

became increasingly attractive to smallholders as markets had improved, and cattle were

significantly more important than sheep in the nineteenth century.188 An incoming tenant

purchased the flock, though occasionally it was owned by the landlord and let out with the

land.

Enclosure of the dales had substantial impact on the broad economy. Parliamentary

enclosure of the early nineteenth century subdivided the old common cow pastures and the

upper slopes of the southern side of the dale by regular geometric walls.189 Farmers

benefiting from enclosure were able to increase the productivity of their land with the

improved drainage, more effective use of manures and fertilisers, and with new buildings.

Land values and rents rose following enclosure.190 Rented land predominated through the

second half of the nineteenth century in Swaledale.191 Many more occupants of holdings

rented than owned their land in figures taken from the 1840s and 1890s.192 As the overall

number of holdings continued to fall towards the end of the 1800s, the proportion of farmers

who owned some or all of their holdings increased somewhat, but by the early twentieth

century rented land still exceeded 95% of the dale. The complex pattern of land in Swaledale

required an individual farmer to acquire a viable mix of meadow, pasture and rough grazing

from fields spread around a township. Tenants often rented from several people in order to

maintain a viable holding. Many tenants rented from more than one owner in an attempt to

farm land of the right mix and quality. By the nineteenth century most leases were yearly.

This gave tenants security, and frequently owner and tenant shared in the cost of

188 The mining depression of the late 1820s was exacerbated by an onset of sheep disease and a fall in farming

income (D. Morris, The Dalesmen of the Mississippi River (York, 1989), p.12.). Sheep farming was favoured

where there was extensive moorland grazing, such as Muker and upland Arkengarthdale.

189 A. Fleming, Swaledale: Valley of the Wild River (Edinburgh, 1998), p. 53.

190 Hallas, Rural Responses to Industrialization, pp. 61 – 75. Sir Charles Turner bought many Arkengarthdale

long leases between 1779 and 1808, and set about a policy of rack renting. He replaced leases with the term of

one year, so that he could improve his rents year by year: Fieldhouse and Jennings, History of Richmond and


191 Fieldhouse and Jennings, History of Richmond and Swaledale, pp. 462 – 464. Most of Swaledale’s farmers

were tenants of freeholders or copyholders. The distinction between freehold and copyhold tenure of ownership

in the nineteenth century was indistinct. Copyhold rents were peppercorn in value and such land was sold as if

it were freehold.

192 The data are taken from: Hallas, Rural Responses to Industrialization, Table 4.6, p.60 and Table 4.5, p. 59.

The data relate to number of occupiers in Swaledale in 1887, 1895 and 1915, and number of holdings in

Melbecks in 1844 and 1895.

215

improvements on the holding. A feeling of mutual trust could grow and it was commonplace

for several generations of the same family to succeed as tenants. Many owners and tenants

were related such that leasing of land was more of a community convenience than a business

venture.193 Even during the economic depression of the 1880s and 1890s, rents remained

buoyant, reflecting the continued demand for limited acreage of good land. Most landlords

survived the worst years of this depression, if in somewhat straitened circumstances.

The five Swaledale families that showed the greatest decline were landlords in the 1840s that

tended to own more land than they occupied, although this differential varied between the

families and between the regions of the dale (see Tithe Apportionments in Table 11).194 The

collapse of mining employment in these families of the dale was almost total by 1901. The

mining community collapsed in Muker district after 1841. The industry was the backbone of

the local economy in the district of Melbecks, the site of the Lownathwaite and Blakethwaite,

Surrender and Old Gang mines. There were two patterns of mining households in Melbecks,

the predominant one of a stable number of miners until 1861 or thereabouts, after which the

numbers fell away. The Aldersons in Melbecks were able to diversify into farming after the

Old Gang and other mines failed, but the Harkers could not. Vagaries of landowning

practices may explain the difference between these two families. The Peacock miners of

Melbecks actually grew in number. The mainstay of the local economy in Arkengarthdale

was also the mining industry. Two of the five prominent families had no real presence in

Arkengarthdale, but the numbers of mining households of the other three families fell

progressively. In Reeth a couple of the five families showed a growth followed by a slump in

the number of mining heads of household, while the other three showed only a drop in their

number over the half century. Most of the Aldersons of Reeth at the start of the period

serviced the needs of this small community, including the workhouse master. The families

that proliferated in Swaledale, on the other hand, placed no undue reliance on the precarious

193 C.S. Hallas, ‘Yeomen and peasants? Landownership patterns in the North Yorkshire Pennines, c. 1770 –

1900’, Rural History, 9 (1998), pp. 169 – 170. The absence of a resident large landowner generated an

independence of spirit, ‘a naturalness uninfluenced by social distinctions, so there was no servility … : E.

Pontefract, Swaledale (London, 1934), p. 24.

194 Tithe holdings have been taken from listings of Muker 1844, Melbecks 1844, Arkendale 1838 and Reeth

1844 in the Parish of Grinton held by TheGenealogist.co.uk 2018.

216

mining industry, save for George Reynoldson, a lead-miner-cum-innkeeper of Melbecks for

almost the entire half century.

The fortunes of these five families were much more buoyant in the agricultural economy.

The districts apart from Arkengarthdale showed an increase in the number of farming

household heads between 1841 and 1901. There was a general slump in the number of

farming households of these kinship families across the dale in the 1850s and 1880s, but

growth in their numbers in the other four decades of the second half of the century. Two

patterns emerge in farming families in Muker, namely one of stability in the number of

farmers in the families across the period, and the other of growth in number. In Reeth there

was a mixed economy of industry and agriculture, where most of these families enjoyed a rise

then a drop in the number of farmers.

Owned Owned and Occupied Occupied not Owned Total Owned Total Occupied

Alderson 1206 923 1012 2129 1935

Harker 175 125 149 300 274

Metcalfe 764 432 80 1196 512

Peacock 161 157 213 318 370

Raw 119 0 473 119 473

Totals 4062 3564

Acreage in Muker


Alderson 13 0 78 13 78

Harker 60 35 13 95 48

Metcalfe 7 2 46 9 48

Peacock 65 0 2 65 2

Raw 73 4 13 77 17

Totals 259 193

Acreage in Melbecks


Alderson 76 66 386 142 452

Harker 27 23 14 50 37

Metcalfe 0 0 0 0 0

Peacock 348 0 45 348 45

Raw 0 0 0 0 0

Totals 540 534

Acreage in Arkengarthdale

217

Table 11. Tithe apportionments in Swaledale in 1838 – 1844

Inheritance

Landownership in Swaledale was influenced heavily by the tenure under which families

occupied land and by inheritance practices. The custom of partible inheritance in Swaledale,

the practice of joint inheritance by male siblings (in the first instance), encouraged the

fragmentation or parcellisation of land and promoted a market in land.195 It also tended to

hold kinship families in the parish. Farmers acquired a number of holdings of land, or 'cattle

gates', and these were divided equally among the sons of the deceased. The number of gates

a farmer held determined the number of animals which he could graze on the moor. The

‘Byelaw Book of Muker' records the administration of 245 such gates from the late

eighteenth century.196 The distribution of gates among the farming community was usual in

Swaledale in the nineteenth century.197 There is some indirect evidence of inheritance of land

195 P.R. Scofield, Peasant and Community in Medieval England, 1200-1500 (Basingstoke, 2003), p. 62. The

specific inheritance practices in Swaledale are described in: Fieldhouse and Jennings, History of Richmond and


196 NYCRO, ZRD By-law book for Muker pasture 1782 – 1830.

197 Such communal responsibilities among Swaledale families persisted also in the twentieth century, as for

example in the shared mutual obligations to erect and maintain boundary dry-stone walls separating

neighbouring land (S.K. Phillips, ‘Encoded in stone: neighbouring relationships and the organisation of stone

walls among Yorkshire Dales farmers’, Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford, 15 (1984), p. 235).


Alderson 35 18 120 53 138

Harker 0 0 0 0 0

Metcalfe 229 170 33 399 203

Peacock 30 5 616 35 621

Raw 26 0 0 26 0

Totals 513 962

Acreage in Reeth


Alderson 1330 1002 1597 2332 2599

Harker 262 183 177 445 360

Metcalfe 1001 604 159 1605 763

Peacock 604 162 875 766 1037

Raw 218 4 0 222 4

Totals 5370 4763

Acreage in Swaledale

218

by three large kinship families in this thesis (the Alderson, Harker and Metcalfe families), in

that more than a quarter (29%) of their farming heads of household identified in all the

censuses of the second half of the nineteenth century were the offspring of a farmer in the

same district of Swaledale.198

The system of partible inheritance, originally aimed to share rights to land within kin groups,

became inefficient. It tended to split up individual holdings to the point where they were no

longer economically viable, such that families would engineer strategic marriages to reunite

their land holdings.199 The minimum acreage for viability of a farm was around 40 acres.

When a family holding was already small, subdivision of the land by inheritance could force

subsistence farmers to sell their apportionment or supplement their income from non-

agricultural industries. The practice also encouraged children to remain on the inherited land,

adding to population pressure. Population expansion and the subdivision of land holdings

could thereby reinforce each other. Population expansion increased subdivision, which in

turn further boosted the population by giving younger sons the opportunity to marry.

Inheritance practices encouraged offspring to emigrate in a failing economy. Very few

holdings passed through more than two generations without division.

Some testamentary refinements were intended to offset the splitting of holdings into

economically ruinous plots. Younger children could receive a cash compensation in lieu of

their land entitlement. In areas where it was more traditional than customary, partible

inheritance led to a less equitable division of land. The eldest son received the largest

portion, and other children a smaller share. This practice occurred mostly in the lower half of

the dale. In some cases, a process of re-amalgamation of land occurred, whereby a divided

inheritance was reunited immediately. One difference between upper dales Muker and the

other subdistricts lies in inheritance practices. Partible inheritance in times past would have

198 Of the 107 Alderson heads who identified themselves as farmers at any census between 1841 and 1901

(Appendix 12), 32 (30%) were the offspring of a farmer in the same district; corresponding figures for the

Harker farmers (Appendix 13) were 50 and 10 (20%) and for the Metcalfe farmers (Appendix 14) 60 and 21

(35%).

199 Fleming, Swaledale, pp. 56 – 61. Bell and Newby discuss marriage contracts in Southern Ireland in the

twentieth century: Bell and Newby, Community Studies, p. 136.

219

tended to retain kinship families. A switch to primogeniture in Muker may have reversed that

pattern over the nineteenth century.200

Dual Occupations

There were few opportunities for employment outside lead mining and agriculture in

nineteenth-century Swaledale.201 Hand-knitting had once been prominent in the dale but was

already in decline by 1800.202 The adaptation of stocking frames to steam power caused the

industry to collapse, although many women and children earned an income from knitting

frocks, caps and stockings in the 1820s to 1840s. Craftsmen concentrated in Reeth. There

were very few professional people other than one or two doctors and some ministers of

religion and teachers. Domestic service was one of the very few opportunities open to

unmarried girls.203

During periods of economic depression, the population fell as small proprietors sold off their

holdings and emigrated. Other yeomen bought land from their neighbours who chose to

leave the dale.204 Many lead miners were able to survive only by combining their occupation

with agriculture. Hallas has shown that craft employment remained an integral component of

the dales economy throughout the nineteenth century. Although rural exodus in the second

half of the century has been attributed to mechanisation and the loss of rural industry by

Lawton, decline in crafts was not a discernible feature in Swaledale. The peaks of craft

employment in the dale followed the population trends. The absolute number of blacksmiths

in Swaledale, for example, fell by about one third between 1841 and 1881, but there was a

200 Fragments of evidence in this thesis indicate that primogeniture was a mode of inheritance in Muker.

201 Hey has described dual economies in the seventeenth century when cultivation of a small farm was combined

with a craft in South Yorkshire, and notes similar patterns of occupation in lead-mining villages, in D.G. Hey,

‘A dual economy in South Yorkshire’, The Agricultural History Review, 17 (1969), p. 108.

202 Hand knitting flourished during the reign of Elizabeth I, when nearly every dales family is said to have been

involved with the trade. Hosiers procured the local wool, farmed it out to the knitters, and subsequently

collected the finished products (Morris, The Dalesmen of the Mississippi River, p.7.). Miners walking to work

are said to have relieved the monotony by knitting: Pontefract, Swaledale, p. 100.

203 Fieldhouse and Jennings, History of Richmond and Swaledale, pp. 452 – 458. Some preindustrial

occupations and social structures continued during and after the collapse of the lead mining industry, emigration

allowing features of the old order to survive in parallel with the new agriculture (E. Richards, ‘Malthus and the

uses of British emigration’, in K. Fedorowich and A.S. Thompson (eds), Empire, Migration and Identity in the

British World (Manchester, 2013), p. 54).

204 Hallas, Rural Responses to Industrialization, pp. 43 – 55.

220

small increase in their number per thousand of the population as the economy reverted to an

agricultural base as the mining collapsed. The craft of shoemaking followed a similar

pattern. The number of stonemasons declined over this period also by about one third, but

increased markedly in nearby Wensleydale as the needs of these populations changed.205

The proportion of the workforce in the dale with a dual occupation increased almost threefold

between 1851 and 1891. This reached a peak of 181 mine workers in agriculture in 1871.206

Generally about one in seven of recorded census entries for the heads of household of the

three largest kinship families in the dale (Alderson, Harker and Metcalfe families) were

combined occupations at times over the second half of the century.207 Mining began its

terminal decline in the 1870s, and progressively miners in difficult economic circumstances

attempted to remain in the area by moving into farming. Some owners of small holdings

opted to retain their land even when this was not economically viable. They were willing to

accept a low income, use family labour, and engage in other forms of employment such as

lead mining or the textile industry. The demand for land further encouraged the owners of

small holdings to sell their property, and the final picture after the collapse of the lead mining

industry was a shrunken population of farmers holding larger acreages of land.208

Poverty

The high point of nineteenth-century wage levels occurred in the dale in the 1860s. Miners’

wages before this had fallen sharply during the depression of the late 1820s, and they fell

again during the collapse of the industry beginning in the 1870s. Agricultural earnings

declined in the depression after the early 1870s.209 Hallas has shown that community

cohesion and migration in Swaledale were effective in coping with the issue of poverty, and

that the particular factors that operated were landownership and farmholding patterns, rural

205 C. Hallas, ‘Craft occupations in the late nineteenth century: Some local considerations’, Local Population

Studies, 44 (1990), pp. 22 – 28.

206 Hallas, Rural Responses to Industrialization, pp. 42 - 43.

207 Of the 806 recorded entries of heads of household of these three families in the census enumerations between

1851 and 1901 (see Appendices 12-14), 114 (or 14%) were dual (or occasionally triple) occupations.

208 Hallas, ‘Yeomen and peasants?’, p. 169.


221

industry, and dual occupations. 210 Textile work and other by-employment coupled with

small landowners and occupiers with an independence of spirit resistant to poor relief

systems imposed by central government influenced the community response to poverty.211

Recourse to the Poor Law was minimised in this community, and in the last quarter of the

nineteenth century less than 4% of the population applied for poor relief, a figure

significantly lower than the national average. Smallholdings and farm service fostered close

ties and many farmers had connections either through kinship or dual occupation with local

service and craft industries. Most farmers and other workers in this community had a vested

interest in keeping poor law costs to a minimum. Local vestries tried to encourage paupers to

seek employment elsewhere, generating a further group of migrants. Charity and self-help

initiatives provided further community support, aided by the non-hierarchical community

structure.

Community Spirit

The drain of families from the dale during the nineteenth century depleted the community of

its entrepreneurial spirit and much of its vitality.212 Local tradesmen suffered, and some

thought that it was the best workers who had left.213 The hamlets became deserted.214 The


153. There was no real improvement in the standard of living of the working family in Swaledale throughout

most of the nineteenth century. Many families in the dale were unable to avoid debt even whilst in employment

(Fieldhouse and Jennings, History of Richmond and Swaledale, pp. 280 – 292). The majority of the paupers

lived in Melbecks and Muker, and very few in Arkengarthdale and Reeth itself. In the early years of the century

Arkengarthdale and Muker select vestries attempted to distinguish between what they considered to be

undeserving and deserving claimants. Arkengarthdale vestry attempted to withhold relief to persuade paupers to

work. It ordered that old people with property should not be relieved until their property was sold for

maintenance, and operated in conjunction with the mining companies which had difficulties employing women

and children to wash lead ore (Fieldhouse and Jennings, History of Richmond and Swaledale, pp. 304 – 316).

211 C.S. Hallas, ‘Poverty and pragmatism in the northern uplands of England: the North Yorkshire Pennines, c.

1770 – 1900’, Social History, 25 (2000), p. 67.

212 Hallas, Rural Responses to Industrialization, pp. 290 – 291. The schools lost many of their pupils; the

attendance at Gunnerside school fell from 73 to 50 between 1870 and 1878 and Reeth school lost half its

children in 1882. The closure of inns in Reeth and the decline in markets and fairs was described by an author

at the time: H. Speight, Romantic Richmondshire (London, 1897), p. 233.

213 Letters written by Jabus Raisbeck of Reeth, Stationer, Printer and Correspondent for Darlington & Stockton

Times 1885-1905, held at Reeth Museum. Raisbeck was well known for his commentary on local affairs; see

Speight, Romantic Richmondshire, p. 241.

214 J. Morris, The North Riding of Yorkshire (London, 1906), p. 17.

222

number of uninhabited houses grew, over a quarter of all dwellings in 1891 in Swaledale and

about one tenth in the preceding decade standing empty. Both the owner-occupier and the

tenant in Swaledale showed fierce attachment to the land. The resident owners of small

estates were the landlords of most of the tenants and there was little difference in social

standing among the community. This fostered an independence of spirit considered typical of

the dalesmen, and this resolve coupled with a reasonable return on capital and a modest

lifestyle enabled many to ride out periods of depression.215

There was also some cultural divergence or shift between Anglican and Nonconformist

mentality and behaviour in the dale.216 As the population fell and kinship families migrated,

the dwindling number of fathers left in the Anglican congregations of Muker, Grinton and

Arkengarthdale were drawn increasingly from fewer or smaller kinship families. The reverse

occurred in some Nonconformist communities, in that the number of fathers in the

Congregational and Methodist Chapels of Reeth grew for a period of time and they came

from larger or more numerous kinship families. Differences are also apparent between some

Anglican and Nonconformist graveyards. Methodists of Gunnerside and Low Row chose to

memorialise their kinship family members in lower density and in smaller graveyards than

their Anglican brethren from other parishes, and their commonest family gravestones did not

represent the largest kinships of the dale. The attitudes these differences suggest may reflect

the independence of spirit, individualism and cultural unity of Nonconformist believers.217

215 Hallas, ‘Yeomen and peasants?’, p. 171. In a parish in Wales with some similarities in its community to

Swaledale, Rees suggests that some farmers did not emigrate because of the solidarity of the family, bonds of

kinship, connection with chapel or church, and status among neighbours. Class distinction was also weak in this

parish (A.D. Rees, Life in a Welsh Countryside: A Social Study of Llanfihangel yng Ngwynfa (Cardiff, 1951), p.

31).

216 Hunt noted this dichotomy in the more northern Pennine dales: C.J. Hunt, The Lead Miners of the Northern

Pennines (Manchester, 1970), pp. 214 – 223. The Anglican Church had become remote in the early nineteenth

century, and the religious vacuum was filled by Methodism over the first half of the century. He attributes this

puritanical reformation in thinking in part to the mine-owners’ increasing dominance over almost every aspect

of their employees’ lives. Methodism, Hunt quotes ‘was the principal engine in effecting a moral change in this

wild district’.

217 The Wesleyan Methodist mentality is well described in M. Batty, Gunnerside Chapel and Gunnerside Folk,

Reeth Museum. A discerning traveller through Swaledale in the early twentieth century observed this state of

mind: ‘It is remote, rural, communal, … where the race,born simple and natural, die in the same natural state.

Every man holds himself to the simpler tenets of conduct, fearing God, speaking out the truth as they may see it,

respecting the rights of others and so guarding their own, albeit holding with sturdiness that all men are equal,

with their neighbours.’ (E. Bogg, Richmondshire, p. 359). See also A. Everitt, The Pattern of Rural Dissent: the

Nineteenth Century (Leicester, 1972); ‘Conformity, dissent and the influence of landownership’, in K.D.M.

223

John Ward, a Wesleyan Minister writing in 1865, lamented the decline of community ties in

Swaledale, which he attributed to under-employment and migration following exhaustion of

the mines.218 Before the arrival of John Wesley in the dale in 1761, the people had preferred

sports and games to religion, which had ‘dwindled into cold and empty formalism’.

Methodist preaching, sunday schools, day schools, and temperance societies had formerly

improved the moral culture of the dale's inhabitants and crime was almost completely absent.

Reeth had deteriorated from a thriving busy little market town.219 The Chapel at Keld had

been affected greatly by emigration. ‘The markets and fairs which were once the scenes of

crowd and bustle, have become the wretched ghosts of their former activity and life’. The old

Methodists had been 'people of stirling worth … of plain and steady habits’, but their

descendants regarded the Chapel now with scorn and contempt. The difference between

Methodists of former days and the present he likened to the difference ‘between an aude and

a new milk cheese’. Methodism in the Dales in 1865 was ‘like a well-built ship becalmed

upon the ocean waiting for a heavenly breeze’, his fervent hope being that the future would

be more like the past. The religious life of Swaledale had suffered as members of the

congregations and prominent leaders of the Nonconformist chapels had departed.220 Jabus

Raisbeck, a ‘lonely old bachelor’ of Reeth who wrote his diary and letters in the 1890s,

likewise lamented the devaluation of land, the dilapidation of houses, the wretchedness of

Snell and P.S. Ell, Rival Jerusalems: The Geography of Victorian Religion (2000, Cambridge, 2009), p. 364;

‘Village Methodism’, in R. Moore, Pit-men, Preachers and Politics: the Effects of Methodism in a Durham

Mining Community (Cambridge, 1974), p. 93; ‘The crisis of rural society: “The labouring poor”’, in A.

Howkins, Reshaping Rural England: A Social History 1850-1925 (London, 1991), p. 166; K.E. Smith,

‘Nonconformists, the home and family life’, in R. Pope (ed.), T&T Clark Companion to Nonconformity

(London, 1969), p. 285; ‘The functions of “Church” and “Chapel”, in A.D. Gilbert, Religion and Society in

Industrial England: Church, Chapel and Social Change, 1740 – 1914 (London, 1976), p. 69; and E.P.

Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class 1780 – 1830 (London, 1963).

218 J. Ward, Methodism in Swaledale and the Neighbourhood (Bingley,1865). John Ward was Methodist

minister at Gunnerside Chapel, the fortunes of which are detailed in Batty, Gunnerside Chapel. Pontefract

writing in 1934 attributed strong Nonconformity to the influence of the Lord of the Manor, Lord Wharton, in the

seventeenth century. She noted that most people of Swaledale kept to their faith even at the Restoration in spite

of persecution (Pontefract, Swaledale, p. 110).

219 The ‘ruin and desolation’ of Gunnerside persisted into the twentieth century (Pontefract, Swaledale, p. 96).

220 Hallas, Rural Responses to Industrialization, p. 290. See also Hallas, ‘Migration’, p. 159.

224

trade, the hardship for farmers, and the ‘vast of families that have left Reeth and the

neighbourhood’.221

Much of the spirit of community of Swaledale seems to have collapsed over the century as

the larger kinship families waned in strength. On the other hand, migrant families, both in

Lancashire or in Iowa, took with them or developed their own strong sense of community.

They tended to live in close proximity in Burnley, for example, and worshipped together.222

Dalesfolk in Iowa became integrated over a wide area of the mining and farming country and

absorbed into the American social order.223 They intermarried within the Swaledale enclave

to a large extent. Ethnic cohesion remained strong in a foreign land, as did their own

distinctive Swaledale dialect, and kinship ties remained paramount.224

Family History

This chapter turns finally to look at the fortunes of the largest kinship family in this thesis, the

Aldersons of Upper Swaledale. Many members of this family abandoned their homeland in

the northern Pennines in the second half of the nineteenth century, and driven by industrial

unemployment or agrarian depression, emigrated to North America. James Broderick

followed in their path and wrote in his diary of travels in Iowa a description of strong kinship

bonds between these immigrants. He penned on Tuesday 6th of February 1877:225

221 Letters written by Jabus Raisbeck of Reeth, Stationer, Printer and Correspondent for Darlington & Stockton

Times 1885-1905, held at Reeth Museum. Bogg, travelling through the dale, implied that this depression had

lifted by the early twentieth century (Bogg, Richmondshire, p. 215).

222 E. Driver, Memories of a Heritage: Memories of Brooklands Road Methodist Chapel, Burnley (Burnley,

1982).

223 Morris, The Dalesmen of the Mississippi River, p. 89.

224 L.N. Horton (ed.), The Character of the Country: The Iowa Diary of James L. Broderick, 1876–1877 (Iowa,

1976), p. 13; see also J. Harland, A Glossary of Words used in Swaledale, Yorkshire (London, 1873).

225 Horton, The Character of the Country, p. 72. The habit of ignoring surnames and giving nicknames, seen in

this quotation, was common and persisted into the twentieth century in Swaledale: Pontefract, Swaledale, p75.

Many nicknames of Muker dalesmen and their derivations are listed in E. Cooper, Muker: The Story of a

Yorkshire Parish (Clapham, 1948), pp. 58 – 67. Distinct local dialects, distinguishable between dalesmen living

only a few miles apart in Swaledale, provided cultural boundaries: S.K. Phillips, ‘Natives and incomers: the

symbolism of belonging in Muker parish, North Yorkshire’, in A.P. Cohen (ed.), Symbolising boundaries:

identity and diversity in British cultures (Manchester, 1986), p. 141.

225

Alderson, who married Thomas Metcalfe's wife's sister and farms under Nanny Watters,

was tying up his cows. His sheds were some of them in miserable repair. He says there is

little to be made from cattle and that this country is not worth a damn for ought but pigs.

I went to Thomas Metcalfe's. He was just going out to George Wharton’s who came from

Satron in Swaledale. He married Mary Tiplady, sister to Betty Tiplady, who lived several

years at Spring End, who also lives not far from here, so I went with him. We called on

Joseph Reynoldson who went with us. Saw Tiplady as we went; he and another had fallen

down a shaft, the ladder having broken as they were climbing. He was nearly better. We

had dinner and tea with Mr and Mrs Wharton and their daughter. The daughter is a very

fine, tall, healthy-looking young woman. I admired her considerably. Wharton and

Lockey were over in Swaledale some years ago. They came to see my father. I do not

remember having seen them. He, Wharton, thinks we were mowing, and father and

Luther, who was going barefoot at the time, were doing something with the sheep on the

moor. They saw Jack Jammie as they came and his little boy who he called the American

Boggle, because Old Dickey Waller and his wife were so grieved and would not write to

him. I think nevertheless that Jammie with all his faults was quite as good and perhaps

much better than old Dickey and his wife although they are so religious. Wharton talked a

good deal about Mrs Clarkson of Satron and the family. He was a favourite of hers and

used give him many a strong glass of rum, in haytime and when he did the garden up.

The diary talks of a casual walk to call on old friends and enjoy their generous hospitality,

chancing upon and collecting acquaintances along the way, recollections of marriages and

alliances between families in the dale, fond reminiscences of farming life, and perhaps a little

religious tension and regret. ‘Alderson’ seems to have become embittered, possibly fallen on

hard times. Some decades before this entry the Aldersons had written letters to kinsmen left

behind in Swaledale.226 The main focus of Edmond and Jonathan Alderson’s letters home

was warm greetings for family and friends out of sight but not out of mind, and reassuring

news of their own health. ‘My self was never so fat and content in all [my] life’, wrote

Edmond, and as for his wife, ‘she has had her health well since she came into this country

and is grown quite fat…’. Many asides tell of pangs of home-sickness for their old family

ways: ‘… we never shall forget our native land’; ‘… I only wish for my mother & sister’; ‘…

Mary Jane talks a great deal about her English grandmother’. Some anxiety about family

back in Swaledale could disturb Jonathan’s sleep: ‘I am somewhat alarmed respecting my

strange dreams about my poor old father, although we are separated in person you are not

separated from our minds.’ And paranoia about kin so far away could play tricks on the

mind: ‘I have been thinking never to write any more to England, it appears that our friends

226 Letters held at North Yorkshire County Record Office: Amos Alderson Arkengarthdale Papers; 5. Personal

Papers; 3. Letters from America: Edmond Alderson at Counsilhill 1841; Jonathan Alderson at New Diggins

1843; Edmond Alderson at New Diggins 1844; Jonathan Alderson at Counsill Hill 1848; Jonathan Alderson at

Argile 1855.

226

have forgot all about us in America.’ Jonathan Alderson told of a ‘great English wedding’ in

New Diggins in Iowa, the groom ‘married to wife Sarah Woodward a daughter of Adam

Woodward from Healaugh’. A letter arriving from home was a memorable event: ‘ … we

had [John March] all night on the 9th of this month and his brother William, they were at our

house when your letter came …’. Not all the recollections of kin in Swaledale were fond,

however, Jonathan recalling that ‘my poor old father … never gave me a shilling …’. Other

messages to family and kin concerned money, such as when Edmond Alderson arranged by

legal means for his inheritance from his grandfather in the dale to be entrusted to William

Calvert of Thwait near Muker for safe keeping.227

These letters talk also of reliance on old kin in the new land. Jonathan tells his family at

home that he had taken into his house his brother and William Atkinson, and Jonathan had

provided sanctuary for John Dickson’s widow and three children. America had proved to be

a haven of economic opportunity for the Aldersons. ‘We work when we please & we play

when we please …’. ‘We cannot boast of riches but we got plenty to eat.’ Immigration to an

unfamiliar culture had been uncomfortable, however, and the letters give no indication that

Swaledale Aldersons had integrated well with their new community. ‘At first all seemed

strange to us, the country wild and uncultivated’. Jonathan found the people to be ‘wicked

… a man’s life is no more valued than the life of a dog …’. The climate and the culture of

heavy drinking met with disapproval. ‘John White was frozen to death … when found had

[a] bottle of whiskey in [his] hand’. Edmond and Jonathan Alderson were anxious that kin

should undertake the vast journey to visit them, even for a temporary stay, and did not

dismiss the notion of a return trip to Swaledale. ‘Nothing would give me more pleasure than

to hear of any of our relations coming to see us’, wrote Jonathan. ‘We should like to see you

come back again. But your aunt says that you are to try again and come back. Thomas sends

his kind love to you and wishes that you were back.’ ‘I do intend to come and see you all

once again. But I don’t believe that ever I shall come to stay any time’, Edmond wrote to his

mother.

227 Feelings of belonging and identity with the home migrants had left behind could be strong, or even

exaggerated and intensified, and not restricted to long distance migration. Some identified with place, others

with people, employment or religion (C.G. Pooley, ‘The role of migration in constructing regional identity’, in

B. Lancaster, D. Newton and N. Vall (eds), An Agenda for Regional History (Newcastle upon Tyne, 2007), pp.

64 – 76.).

227

The entreaties to family in these letters to follow their compatriots to a foreign land were

insistent. ‘James Barningham sends his kind love to all friends, saying I have to tell all to

come on and leave the country. … Give our best respects to your brother … tell him to get

himself a wife and come to America’. ‘You could [buy a] very nice better farm with the

money.’ Some messages even goaded kin to emigrate. ‘Now dear brother … I am afraid you

are all too faint hearted … be not cowardly but mount the rolling waves without fear or

dread’. And some lines home were tempered with religious conviction and coupled with the

harsh reality that families may not meet again in this world: ‘Give my best wishes to my

father. Prepare to meet him in heaven. … If we never meet again on earth I trust to meet you

all in heaven as we are fast hastening to the grave.’

228

Chapter 7

Rural and Urban Comparisons

‘The past is a safe place. … Nothing ever changes there …’1

This thesis has explored some kinship families persuaded either by forces outside their own

control or by the prospect of a better life elsewhere to move in some mass migrations into and

out of urban and rural settings in Victorian England. Some comparisons are made finally

between families that moved into York and out of Swaledale during the nineteenth century in

an attempt to answer the five outstanding questions posed at the outset of this thesis: Is there

a simple reproducible way of finding and tracking kinship families in populations affected by

migration? What were the motivations of kinship families to migrate into York or out of

Swaledale? Was there a pattern of migration of kinship families into York and out of

Swaledale? Did kin move together in a chain migration? How did migrant kinship families

interact with their new community, and did migration change these kinship bonds?

Is there a simple reproducible way of finding and tracking kinship families in

populations affected by migration?

Kinship families are defined narrowly in this work as groups of households led by individuals

with the same surname who were related by ancestral lineage (birth) or marriage, for example

fathers and sons or cousins. Isonymic families have been found and tracked across historical

time by means of a simple arithmetic device, a surname index. The index measures the

density of surnames in a population, and not the density of isonymic people. Individuals in

the more transient population of nineteenth-century York with the same surname, however,

were not necessarily related by birth or marriage, and surname density in the city is not a

surrogate for kinship family density. Census data have been used to identify and follow

individuals with the same surname in York who were indeed kinship family members.

People with the same surname in rural Swaledale, however, were kinship family members

through their links in a complex endogamous network of descent and intermarriage.

The changes over the second half of the nineteenth century in the total populations of the six

streets in Holgate and Walmgate and of the total population of Upper Swaledale are plotted

1 Laura Timmins, in Lark Rise to Candleford, adapted by the BBC Series 2 Episode 2 (2008), based on F.

Thompson, Lark Rise to Candleford (Oxford, 1939).

229

against surname indices derived from the household heads in Figures 86 and 87. These

figures show net changes across the period in the movement of household heads with the

same surname.

Figure 86. Total population of Holgate and Walmgate streets of York and surname indices

derived from household heads

Figure 87. Total population of Upper Swaledale and surname indices derived from

household heads

757677787980818283848586

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Su

rnam

e In

dex

Po

pula

tio

n

Year

Population

CSI(H)

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Surn

ame

Index

Po

pula

tio

n

Year

Population

CSI(H)

230

The changes apply to different sectors of the community in the urban and rural populations.

Figure 86 depicts people newly arrived in some streets in York, but Figure 87 applies to the

people of Swaledale left behind after the population declined or left the dale. These surname

indices relate the number of surnames of household heads to the total number of household

heads, the lower the index counter-intuitively indicating the higher the density of heads with

the same surname. The indices in York’s streets fell in most of the six decades of this period.

As the population of the streets grew, the density of heads with the same surname also tended

to grow. In other words, household heads with shared surnames tended to grow in proportion

to heads with surnames unique to the neighbourhood over most of the period in these streets.

Two explanations for this observation, or more likely a combination of the two, are possible:

either more heads related by birth or marriage and with the same surname came to occupy

houses than heads with no such relatives in the streets; or more unrelated (or distantly related)

heads with common surnames migrated coincidentally into the streets than heads with rare

surnames. On the other hand, as the population of Swaledale fell, the proportion of kinship

heads left behind with the same surname declined. The population began its steep descent

around mid-century. A couple of decades thereafter entire groups of kinship heads of

household of the same name disappeared from the dale in increasing numbers or the relative

size of these groups dropped. These urban and rural trends tend therefore to work together in

a complementary fashion, both suggesting that kinship family members may preferentially

have moved together in chain migrations.

What were the motivations of kinship families to migrate into York or out of

Swaledale?

Until the beginning of the second quarter of the nineteenth century rural communities

generally showed a continuous rise in population. At some point before 1851 many rural

parishes passed their peak of population and entered upon an almost continuous decline. The

tide of movement from the countryside reached a peak in absolute terms in the 1870s and

1880s, but the rural north of England experienced substantial losses in the 1880s and 1890s.

Decline had begun in the northern mining areas in the 1830s and 1840s.2 The arrival of the

2 R. Lawton, ‘Rural depopulation in nineteenth century England’, in D.R. Mills (ed.), English Rural

Communities: the Impact of a Specialized Economy (London, 1973), p. 202. Wrigley suggests that the English

male labour force grew at an unprecedented pace in the first half of the nineteenth century, but that agriculture

lost ground relative to other employment; fewer than one quarter of men worked on the land at mid century

compared with two fifths at the beginning. See E.A. Wrigley, ‘Men on the land and men in the countryside:

231

railways accelerated the development of the urban industrial society by penetrating into

remote places that had hitherto lain beyond mainstream life. Countrymen were then able to

capitalise on employment opportunities in the towns after the development of railways. Rural

industries declined in numbers, in turn the consequence of depopulation, technological

advances of the century, and factory mass production. Migration was greatest from those

counties in which agriculture was the main economic activity, and the majority of those who

left the rural areas were under 35 years of age.3 The pattern of migration of families could

change both with their size and with the level of migration.4

Small populations consistently experienced this decline in their numbers, but rural to urban

transfer was only a small part of the total migration of the population. The birth rate in rural

areas could remain high, however, offsetting the losses through migration.5 An overlooked

feature of rural depopulation may have been the lack of people moving into rural parishes

rather than an increased tendency for people to move out.6 Movement from the country into

the towns did not provide sufficient influx to account for the rapid growth of urban areas in

the first half of the century. Other factors were natural urban growth and immigration,

especially from Ireland.7 In most urban societies after 1850, natural population increase was

the more significant component in industrial city expansion. In contrast to the impression

given by contemporary observers, rural to urban shift outstripped movement within the urban

areas only by a relatively small margin. This net loss in rural population impacted gradually

employment in agriculture in early-nineteenth-century England’, in L. Bonfield, R.M. Smith and K. Wrightson

(eds), The World We Have Gained (Oxford, 1986).

3 J. Saville, Rural Depopulation in England and Wales, 1851-1951 (London, 1957), pp. 2 – 52 and 89.

Emigration from Yorkshire peaked in the 1880s; Baines does not attribute this to agricultural depression,

however, nor the fall in emigration in the 1890s to agricultural revival (D.E. Baines, Migration in a Mature

Economy: Emigration and Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1861 – 1900 (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 205 –

206). Schürer, however, has shown in at least one small setting that farmers may have migrated in the 1870s

due to agricultural depression (K. Schürer, ‘The role of the family in the process of migration’, in C.R. Pooley

and I.D. Whyte (eds), Migrants, Emigrants and Immigrants (Cambridge, 1991), p. 127).

4 Schürer, ‘The role of the family’, p. 123.

5 G. Mingay, ‘The rural slum’, in S.M. Gaskell (ed.), Slums (Leicester, 1990), p. 125.


7 Bell and Newby suggest that emigration from Ireland in the early twentieth century ‘provided a socially

acceptable mechanism for dispersing the surplus children who couldn’t inherit the land or be married to a

prospective inheritor’ (C. Bell and H. Newby, Community Studies (1971, London, 1975, p. 135).

232

on communities, and the everyday experience of living in such settlements was not one of

haemorrhage of people but rather massive population turnover.8

What were the motives and forces that brought families into the six streets of York, or enticed

them out of Swaledale? The community in Holgate blossomed during a phase of rapid

growth of the railway industry. The kinship families that tended to move into Railway and St

Paul’s Terraces in the second half of the nineteenth century were motivated by economic

forces and attracted by employment on the railway into the new working-class terraces that

had been built specifically to house them. The railway may have given employees easy

access to transport which could facilitate their migration. Rural decline may have pushed a

few urban newcomers the short distance into York from neighbouring villages. Most railway

kinship families arrived in Holgate from other northern industrial towns outside Yorkshire,

and only a few from York or surrounding villages. On the other hand, the majority of the

non-railway kinship families arrived from the non-industrial settings of York and nearby

villages, and only one wealthy family took a long-distance migration to York.

The families of these working-class terraces showed remarkable persistence or stability after

their arrival. Working men whose families stayed in the streets were almost entirely railway

employees. At least a half of household heads of the same surname were resident for at least

a decade in 1881, and by 1891 nearly all of these heads of household were long-stay

residents. About a third of the newcomers in 1881 in these working-class terraces were

destined to remain for more than 20 years.

Generally about a fifth of working-class households at mid-century remained at the same

address for as long as a decade, as seen in Huddersfield and in some York families in 1844.9

Middle-class families, those with house ownership or a secure income and the wherewithal to

pay regular rent, were less likely to move. Most railway workers lived close to their jobs in

the stations, depots and workshops. These employees, however, included such a diverse mix

of lower- and middle-class status that even the most high-status areas of a district in some

8 C. Pooley and J. Turnbull, Migration and Mobility in Britain since the Eighteenth Century (London, 1998), pp.

94, 112, 145 and 306 – 307. It was only settlements of less than 5000 population that consistently experienced a

net loss in the nineteenth century; settlements in all other size categories up to 100,000 gained more migrants

than they lost. Movement within a settlement, or to another similar size or smaller place, was the more usual

experience.


255 – 268.

233

Victorian cities could be dominated by the 1870s by railway workers. New houses tended

often to be occupied by families moving into a town. Railway employees benefited from a

structural career setting and secure housing tenure. There tended also to be residential and

family or kinship segregation within the railway workforce. Clusters of households from key

employment sectors in the railway community often remained in the same houses between

censuses. Long-serving staff, particularly managerial, clerical and artisan grades, showed

remarkable stability, possibly because their employer was also effectively their landlord. In

the Derby railway workforce, employees were less prone to move house than might be

expected in comparison with other occupational groups.10 Traffic staff was the core of long-

term residents, whilst engine drivers were by far the most stable grade of the workforce.

Similarly in Gant’s study of three railway villages, an analysis of occupational grades and

homes of railway staff showed preferential location of engine drivers in one residential area.11

In line with these trends the Holgate suburb of York showed segregation of the railway

workforce and stability of households in the working-class terraces.

The suburb of Holgate had been built on agricultural land to receive the new railway

workforce. The streets of Walmgate, by contrast, were constructed in 1810 on low-lying and

poorly-drained land without adequate sanitary provisions, and it was to this area that Irish

famine immigrants gravitated. The dwellings were populated by unskilled labourers of an

agricultural and then an industrial occupation. They were drawn to the City probably by the

prospect of casual labour in the cultivation of chicory, a crop grown in some villages a few

miles walk from York.12 Prominent Irish families exhibited transience and mobility in their

occupation of houses. Persistent surnames in the streets of Long Close Lane and Hope Street

10 G. Revill, ‘”Railway Derby”: Occupational community, paternalism and corporate culture 1850-1881’, Urban

History, 28 (2001), pp. 378 – 402.

11 R. Gant, ‘Railway villages in south east Monmouthshire 1850-1965: a community perspective’, Local

Population Studies, 90 (2013), pp. 49 – 72.

12 The Irish had worked seasonally around York for many years. Possibly as many as 3000 acres of land were

given over to cultivation of chicory within six miles of York, and the Irish provided the majority of the field

labourers. The emergence of large-scale cultivation of the crop coincided with the arrival of the first famine

immigrants. There was also a suggestion that Ragged Schools may have attracted immigrants. However,

Finnegan also makes the point that desperation possibly forced the Irish to go ‘anywhere and everywhere in

search of shelter and work’ (F. Finnegan, Poverty and Prejudice: A Study of Irish Immigrants in York 1840-

1875 (Cork, 1982), pp. 27 – 34.). Dyos and Reeder list some other motives of paupers to migrate to London

slums which may also have applied to York, including charity and richer rewards for crime (H.J. Dyos and D.A.

Reeder, ‘Slums and suburbs’, in H.J. Dyos and M. Wolff (eds), The Victorian City: Images and Realities,

volume 1 (London, 1973), p. 362).

234

tended to increase in numbers over the second half of the nineteenth century. Only very

rarely at any census had more than a quarter of the persistent surnames been resident as a

head of household for at least ten years, and even fewer for at least 20 years or more.

Households tended to leave the streets for a period of time, shortly to return. Inhabitants

continued to live in the Irish neighbourhood with frequent changes of address, often moving

from one lodging house or tenement to another nearby. They continued to monopolise

particular streets in Walmgate, and by the end of the century the community was dominated

by those of Irish descent but born in York.

Migrants to York were attracted by the prospect of skilled or semi-skilled employment in the

new railway suburb of Holgate, or gravitated en masse to unskilled labour in the

impoverished Irish slum district of Walmgate. Yorkshire and northern England on balance

had a reasonably stable pattern of population, where losses and gains were relatively evenly

balanced. Regions of England undergoing industrial decline such as Swaledale experienced

the least in-migration and the most out-migration. Emigration overseas was a major feature

of Victorian society. For a century after the 1840s, Britain lost more emigrants overseas than

it gained through immigration.13 Many Swaledale miners emigrated as their industry failed

and collapsed. Their decision to relocate to North America probably reflected the prospect of

a job opportunity coupled with dissatisfaction with life at home. Most Swaledale emigrants

responded to a combination of economic and social push factors and the prospect of more

attractive opportunities elsewhere.

Was there a pattern of migration of kinship families into York and out of Swaledale?

No kinship families arrived in the terraces of Holgate when they were first built, in that none

of the first resident household heads shared a surname. However, the lustre of secure

employment in a hub of the railway world thereafter presumably enticed some kinship

families into these working-class streets. These families came in the main from industrial

regions of the Northeast and Lancashire and were the descendants of working-class stock.

Some had moved from one industrial base to another, and some arrived as children before

establishing their own household and employment. Households were prone to move between

similar working-class terraces in the city before arriving as kinship groups in the railway

13 Pooley and Turnbull, Migration and Mobility, pp. 84, 169 and 275 – 298. There were factors other than

economic that could ease the decision to migrate, including the dullness of country life and greater accessibility

of travel (Mingay, ‘The rural slum’, p. 125).

235

terraces of Holgate. These kinship family households often chose to live next door to each

other.

The detached houses and more spacious terraced houses of Holgate Road and St Paul’s

Square seemingly attracted more wealthy families than the railway workforce, but fewer of

them. Their origins were more local than the railway families nearby. They tended to leave

their birthplaces as working adults and were the established tradesmen or professional men,

retired and independent people. These more mature kinship families were presumably drawn

by the better standard of housing they were able to afford, the prospect of a joint enterprise

for their business ventures, and the hope of mutual emotional support in their declining years.

Similar patterns of migrant railway families were found in other Victorian railway towns.

Recruitment to the railway workforce was governed by patronage, a system that possibly

accounts for the prevalence of some family connections in railway service. The railway

company required a testimonial from a person of good standing, and young men from

integrated kinship networks may have found it easier to obtain such a reference than

individuals from less well-connected families. Families could provide continuous

employment in the railway industry, and company records suggest that long service was

typical of railway work.14 The tendency for sons to follow father’s footsteps into the railway

industry was particularly prominent with skilled working men, as was found in Derby.15

Similarly in Brighton jobs on the railway could attract other family members and former

workmates.16 Sheppard found that blacksmiths employed by the railway in Brighton in the

1860s were the sons of Sussex rural blacksmiths, or had at least been trained by them. New

arrivals in a town could build important kinship networks of benefit to further immigrants.

Gant identified an indigenous core group of workers in a society of Welsh railway villages,

into which new minority groups integrated easily, perhaps because of their linkages.17

14 P.W. Kingsford, Victorian Railwaymen: The Emergence and Growth of Railway Labour 1830-1870 (London,

1970), pp. 7 - 9.


16 J.A. Sheppard, ‘The provenance of Brighton’s railway workers, 1841-61’, Local Population Studies, 72

(2004), pp. 26 – 31.

17 Gant, ‘Railway villages’, pp. 49 – 72.

236

This thesis has concentrated on some selected large kinship families in the Walmgate district

of York. Such families whose first arrivals came from York or Yorkshire more commonly

settled in Hope Street. Large Irish families arrived in both Long Close Lane and Hope Street

soon after the outbreak of the famine in their homeland. Two of the largest Irish immigrant

families appear to have arrived at the port of Liverpool and spread inland to an extent, while

York evidently was not the first settlement of some of these immigrants in the country.

Arrivals peaked in Long Close Lane in 1851 and in Hope Street some ten years later. They

arrived over a period of more than a decade and there were no more new arrivals in the Lane

after 1871. Some large Irish kinship family households and their offspring could persist

across the decades whilst some others left, and their Irish origins were diluted over the

remainder of the century.

The patterns of kinship family migration into the two districts of York were thus quite

distinct, railway families settling over a period of time and the Irish poor arriving in a pulse.

The downhill trend of the largest kinship families in rural Swaledale was constant and

relentless over half a century. The demise of their employment in mining was almost

complete by 1901. They were, however, much more buoyant in the agricultural sector,

showing an increase in the number of farming households in the second half of the century in

all but one of the four districts. Kinship families in the dale became fewer in number and

smaller in size over the period. A fall in the number of households accounts for the

depopulation of the dale. As the population declined fathers in at least some parishes were

drawn increasingly from the dwindling kinship families. Household size also fell due to a

drop in the average number of children. The kinship families declined in increasing numbers,

and remaining families held larger plots of land than their ancestors. Small proprietors sold

off their holdings and left the dale as the economy slumped. After the demise of the lead

mining industry a shrunken population of farmers held larger acres of land than formerly.

There are several likely explanations of these demographic changes, acting either alone or in

conjunction. Possibly entire kinship families emigrated as the economy waned, and

weakened kin ties dampened the inclination of those left behind to remain in the countryside.

The role of kinship bonds was also probably transformed with the switch from a mining to an

agricultural economy, and with mechanisation of farming practices.18 A further possibility is

18 R. Wall, ‘Economic collaboration of family members within and beyond households in English society, 1600

– 2000’, Continuity and Change, 25 (2010), p. 101.

237

that reduced fertility in the dales decreased the size of kinship families, to the extent that

there were fewer offspring to head succeeding households or farm holdings or even to the

extent that entire kinship families disappeared.19 Perhaps kinship families depleted by

infertility were more inclined to seek a better future outside Swaledale. Decline in fertility

conceivably may have encouraged smaller families to move over longer distances.

Weakened kinship links, whether due to departure of those gone before or infertility, may

have provided an impetus to leave the dale.

Most kinship families in Swaledale diminished as the mining industry slumped but a few

proliferated. They were less reliant on lead mining. They showed steady success in the

number of farming households and those engaged in trades and crafts, profiting by the niches

vacated by families in decline. The majority of the population recorded in the censuses

between 1851 and 1881 nevertheless were born locally, this proportion falling as the century

progressed. Families most likely to remain were those with some involvement in

agriculture.20 Most dales in-migrants in this period were attracted also by specific

occupations. Many had travelled only a short distance from their birthplace, but some

professional migrants came from further afield towards the end of the century.21

Did kin move together in a chain migration?

Ravenstein's ‘laws’ on migration were reviewed in the Introduction to this thesis. Some of

his laws have been broadly substantiated by subsequent research. In retrospect, however,

Pooley and Turnbull suggest that they form an outdated perspective on the complexities of

migration.22 The lifetime residential histories compiled by these authors emphasise the

19 For a discussion of fertility decline and contraction of family size in the nineteenth century, see: M. Anderson,

‘The social implications of demographic change’, in F.M.L. Thompson (ed.), The Cambridge Social History of

Britain, 1750 – 1950: Volume 2. People and their Environment (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 40 – 44. Tadmor has

suggested moreover that ‘the greatest structural change in English kinship in the long run was the increased

practice of family limitation and fertility decline from around 1860’ (N. Tadmor, ‘Early modern English kinship

in the long run: reflections on continuity and change, Continuity and Change, 25 (2010), p. 28).


149.


277 – 278.

22 Pooley and Turnbull, Migration and Mobility, pp. 323 – 327. See also: D.B. Grigg, ‘E.G. Ravenstein and the

Laws of Migration’, in M. Drake (ed.), Time, Family and Community. Perspectives on Family and Community

History (Oxford, 1994), p. 147; and D.B. Grigg, ‘Ravenstein and the “laws of migration”’, Journal of Historical

Geography, 3 (1977), p. 41. For further refinement and discussion of the conclusions of Pooley and Turnbull

238

importance of friendship and kinship networks in promoting and easing migration.

Ravenstein’s argument that most movement was from rural to urban areas has proved to be

an overstatement, and his conclusion that families rarely migrated has been proved to be

incorrect. Pooley and Turnbull assert that the majority of moves were undertaken by people

in family groupings. Most migrants moving with their families exploited kinship support

networks to aid integration and find accommodation. The distribution of migrants in a new

town could be highly clustered, even to a particular street.23 Migrants destined for North

America may have gone to some effort to show kinship links with families who had gone

before.24 They continued to feel links and affinity with their former communities over long

distances and periods of time and the flow of information about new opportunities

encouraged the process. Chain migration of family groups was important for all

destinations.25 Some Swaledale miners, for example, found work in quarries in Wensleydale

as their prospects at home diminished and then moved to Lancashire when the quarries

declined.26 Many of the railway kinship families of Holgate had found work in other towns

before their arrival in York. Family networks could survive long distance movement. The

lone individual moving speculatively to an unfamiliar location where there were no family or

friends and with no arranged employment or accommodation was a rarity.27

People moving into York or out of Swaledale tended to be accompanied or followed by kin or

individuals with the same surname in a process of chain migration. Whereas kin ties in York

streets seem to have intensified as the nineteenth century progressed, the ties seem to have

and Ravenstein, see: D. Friedlander and R.J. Roshier, ‘A study of internal migration in England and Wales: Part

1, Population Studies, 19 (1966), p. 239; K. Schürer and D.R. Mills, ‘Population and demography’, in D. Mills

and K. Schürer (eds), Local Communities in the Victorian Census Enumerators’ Books (Oxford, 1996), p. 72; K.

Schürer and D.R. Mills, ‘Migration and population turnover’, in Mills and Schürer, Local Communities, p. 218;

A. Hinde, ‘The use of nineteenth-century census data to investigate local migration’, Local Population Studies,

73 (2004), p. 8; and B. Deacon, ‘Reconstructing a regional migration system: net migration in Cornwall’, Local

Population Studies, 78 (2007), p. 28.

23 Baines, Migration in a Mature Economy, pp. 26 – 31.


25 In their study of movement to London between 1851 and 1911 based on migrants’ place of departure, Schürer

and Day propose that there was chain migration from the south of England of family members to the capital: K.

Schürer and J. Day, ‘Migration to London and the development of the north-south divide, 1851 – 1911’, Social

History, 44 (2019), p. 51.

26 Hallas, Rural Responses to Industrialization, p. 281.

27 Pooley and Turnbull, Migration and Mobility, pp 130 and 304.

239

diminished in rural Swaledale between the families left behind. Immigrants into York

included many groups of people with the same surname, and these groups of people

progressively increased in number and size. The majority of railway kinship family members

moved together into houses near each other in the two terraces in York. Occasional relatives

moved in a chain migration, when brothers or father and son were reunited in the same street.

Similarly the non-railway kinship families tended to arrive in Holgate Road together or

sequentially, again tending to live in close proximity. There seems to have been some chain

migration of prominent families in Walmgate too, as heads of household of the same surname

continued to arrive in the streets until the end of the century. Furthermore, the large majority

of Irish refugees in the city arrived in successive waves from a limited number of counties in

Ireland.28

Emigration directed at a new employment often used existing contacts and frequently family

or friends moved together. Commonly relatives who had emigrated sent back home

information and encouragement for kin to follow in their footsteps.29 Chain migration of

family members probably magnified the exodus as word got back of life outside the dale.

The number of letters sent home grew with the rate of emigration. ‘Newspapers, leaflets,

magazines and public meetings advertised the advantages of emigration; as did the infectious

example set by those who had already moved away and the letter from a friend or relation

recounting his experience of the better life elsewhere and offering help in taking the crucial

step.’30 These letters might be placed in public libraries of towns with an overseas

connection.31 Possibly as a consequence of this encouragement to migrate, the kinship

families left in Swaledale became progressively fewer in number and smaller in size. On the

28 Finnegan, Poverty and Prejudice, pp. 33 and 69. Approximately half of the Irish immigrants whose

birthplace was recorded in the York population of 1851 came from Mayo and Sligo. See also A. Somerville

(ed.), Letters from Ireland during the Famine of 1847 (Dublin, 1994).

29 Hallas, Rural Responses to Industrialization, p. 279. See also J. Rowe, The Hard-Rock Men: Cornish

Immigrants and the North American Mining Frontier (Liverpool, 1974), p. 99; sensational news was published

in the newspapers. Bailey concluded that the flow of information useful to potential migrants to London from

Devon, Norfolk and Sussex in the nineteenth century diminished with increasing distance from the metropolis:

C. Bailey, ‘ “I’d heard it was such a grand place”: Mid-19th century internal migration to London’, Family &

Community History, 14 (2011), p. 121.

30 Mingay, ‘The rural slum’, p. 125.

31 Baines, Migration in a Mature Economy, pp. 26 – 31.

240

other hand, some families that grew in size in the dale were adaptable mobile people who

drew on some chain migration from other areas of northern England.

How did migrant kinship families interact with their new community, and did


The kinship families drawn with the railway workforce after the middle of the nineteenth

century into the new terraces of Holgate made a virgin community and many were destined to

settle there for decades. Families that moved into the more affluent aspirational quarters of St

Paul’s Square and Holgate Road merged seamlessly into neighbourhoods of similar social

standing to themselves, but relatively fewer of them stayed long term. The ethos of working-

class railway culture was there in the Holgate terraces, where select institutions and religious

affiliations were maintained. Families in the main comprised father employed on the nearby

railway works with his wife and children, and extended families were not a prominent feature

of this community. Railwaymen could profit from career progression and sons could follow

in fathers’ footsteps. Small businesses took root in Holgate Road. There was no mobility

barrier around the streets of Holgate, and working men and women took an active interest in

national and local politics.

Holgate railway families, attracted by economic opportunity, often arrived alone with no

kinship support in the new community. Some men came from a rural hierarchical society,

and others from an industrial setting, to work in this urban environment, usually with

adaptable or transferrable agricultural or manual skills. The middle-class kinship family

arrivals of Holgate Road were the more mature established people in later life than the young

railway families a few streets away.

Kinship families of Irish origin in nineteenth-century York, however, did not share the

communal luxuries enjoyed by the railway migrants. Unskilled, they gravitated to a slum

neighbourhood that was already home to the indigenous poor. Attracted by and migrating

with kin, they settled on first arrival in particular streets, and in close proximity to their

fellow countrymen. They tended to make large intimate families, whose offspring moved to

similar houses near their parents. Once arrived in the slums of Walmgate, the immigrants

had no prospect of moving out of the district or of improving their lot. Although Irish parents

had numerous children born in York, grandparents or other related kin rarely lived in the

same dwelling. By the end of the century children of the immigrants born in York had made

their own households in Walmgate.

241

The Irish in Walmgate streets were hostile to an extent towards their English neighbours,

towards their fellow countrymen, and towards those in authority. Overcrowding bred tension

and rivalry. Fuelled by drink, assaults and petty theft were everyday occurrences in this

impoverished climate. Nevertheless, humanity also lay near the surface in the face of

grinding communal poverty, when small acts of neighbourliness and kindness could relieve a

squalid existence. Religious and political views and affiliations were possibly overshadowed

by the sheer struggle to survive. Driven out of Ireland by famine and adversity and attracted

to York by the cultivation of chicory in adjacent villages, Irish agricultural labourers after a

time took on industrial labour in the City. Career progression was not an option with no

prospect of retirement from manual labour.

Core families of English old rural parishes were those families who felt a sense of

‘belonging’ in a village and were content to live out their entire lives there. They occupied a

stratum in a hierarchical society of respect and subservience. Such families had their place in

the rural parishes of Bolton Percy and Poppleton examined earlier in this thesis, but whether

the urban equivalents of core families existed in the new and shifting migrant communities of

Holgate and Walmgate is much more doubtful. No heritage older than the arrival of these

families existed in these communities, and there was no hierarchy or resident governing class.

Communal responsibilities and obligations, such as bound rural societies, had little function

in the urban landscape. Families in Holgate terraces and streets had been attracted there by

economic opportunity and felt allegiance to their occupation rather than the neighbourhood

itself. Similarly the inhabitants of the dilapidated hovels of Walmgate were a transient and

mobile population with no sense of belonging to their alien adopted urban environment.

Emigrants from Swaledale pushed by economic collapse to the mining areas of northern

England or America arrived with kin support and furthermore retained kinship links with

family at home. Dalesmen were equipped with mining skills and retained a mining and

Methodist culture. Letters home reveal antipathy towards their alien foreign hosts but some

enterprising immigrants forged successful business links. The dale community they had

forsaken, however, felt dispirited, deskilled and weakened, and rued their departure.

***

242

Conclusions

Families were induced to migrate into York or out of Swaledale in the nineteenth century for

a whole multitude of reasons. Listed among these were the lure of new economic opportunity

on the railways in York and the inevitable demise of a regional lead-mining industry in

Swaledale, the dearth of jobs on the land in depressed agrarian England and the hope of some

shelter for impoverished Irish immigrants in flight from an ecological disaster, and far-

reaching decisions made by faceless British politicians. Inducements that were equally

important but not as visible were the yearnings for a better life elsewhere and the draw, or

jolt, of an appealing letter home from kin who had departed already.

Surname indices are a simple but powerful tool that can be used to track and compare groups

of people with the same surname across time and between communities. Such groups of

individuals include a subset of kinship families. The indices can be used on lists of names in

any discrete population and to study the effects of major communal events on families.

Complementary chain migrations gathered pace in the second half of the nineteenth century

in urban York and rural Swaledale: there was overall a progressive influx of household heads

with the same surname into some streets of the railway enclave of Holgate and the Irish

quarter of Walmgate in York; and a progressive exodus of groups of heads with the same

surname from the lead-mining region of rural Swaledale.

Kinship families, defined for the purpose of this study as groups of households headed by

individuals with the same surname who were related by ancestry or marriage, migrated into

or out of each of these urban and rural settings. Marked differences in behaviour of families

were present between the communities. Core families, those families that were wedded

sometimes for centuries to hierarchical rural village societies, did not have their counterpart

in the more mobile and transient communities of nineteenth-century York. Kinship families

attracted by the new railway enterprise in York moved into uniform monotonous terraced

streets that had been built specifically to house them, while managerial and professional

families moved into middle-class housing a few streets away. Immigrant Irish kinship

families gravitated to the low-lying flood-prone slums of Walmgate, already home to some of

York’s own poor. The emigrant kinship families of Swaledale left in their wake a

depopulated upland landscape with empty cottages and deserted hamlets.

243

The working-class houses of St Paul’s Terrace and Railway Terrace attracted no kinship

families when they were first built, but thereafter these families arrived in the two streets and

along Holgate Road in the vicinity of York railway station. Middle-class St Paul’s Square in

Holgate did not attract kinship families. Irish immigrants to Walmgate with the same

surname, however, tended to arrive before 1851 along Long Close Lane, but continued to

arrive in Hope Street for another decade. Thereafter the density of these surnames fell as the

century progressed as arrivals ceased, people of Irish origin intermarried, bore children in

York, or left the streets. As the population of these streets in York grew with in-migration,

however, the population of Swaledale from mid-century fell precipitously as the lead-mining

industry collapsed. Entire kinship families disappeared from the dale, either by migration or

extinction, and it was the relatively large kinship families that tended progressively to leave.

Families new to the terraces of Holgate arrived with manual skills useful to a railway

workforce, or transferrable skills from an agricultural background. Small businessmen,

middle-class professionals and the retired also settled in Holgate. Railway kinship families

moved in a stepwise fashion to their destinations in the terraces, from villages, towns, or

industrial centres, and often from similar working-class terraces elsewhere in York itself.

The Irish immigrating en masse to Walmgate brought no particular skills suitable for an

urban culture and initially found agricultural labouring jobs in villages nearby. The holding

of land, rather than the ability to find work in a city, was the key to survival in Swaledale,

where kinship families were always more buoyant if reliant on an agricultural economy. The

emigrants from the dale took with them their mining expertise to similar cultures in Britain or

overseas. Some incomers in their wake tended to be adaptable, versatile and mobile families

who were not reliant on the failing lead mines.

Close relatives heading households in the railway terraces of Holgate tended to live near each

other. Railway families of Holgate were stable, both in the sense that they could occupy the

same house for a decade and more, and in the sense that railway employees remained in St

Paul’s and Railway Terraces until at least the turn of the twentieth century. Irish immigrants

to York chose also to congregate, favouring particular streets and yards, with little prospect of

escape from their slum neighbourhood. Kinship families might stay for decades in Long

Close Lane or Hope Street, and long-stay families became more numerous over the half

century. Irish households were transient and mobile in their occupation of homes, flitting

from one to another, occasionally moving to a street nearby only soon to return. The Irish

flavour of the neighbourhood persisted until slum clearances of the twentieth century. The

244

community of nineteenth-century Swaledale was insular, comprising a complex network of

local kinship families linked by centuries of descent and intermarriage. Some distinctive

behaviours emerged between people with Anglican and Nonconformist beliefs in their

patterns of births and burials. The dale experienced massive depopulation with depletion of

some of its largest kinship families and extinction of others over the nineteenth century, and

influx of only a few small new families.

Holgate terraces in York sustained their railway ethos. Families here suffered some industrial

strife but little social unrest. The Irish in Walmgate, on the other hand, stricken with poverty

and overcrowding, inflicted gratuitous violence upon their own countrymen and their local

neighbours. Humanity could surface nevertheless between people of any origin who found

themselves in desperate straits. Swaledale was dispirited and weakened by its losses, while

its emigrants kept kinship links and the dales culture alive.

This thesis adds to the debates about kinship and migration by demonstrating quantifiable

complementary chain migrations of related people into an urban and out of a rural setting,

and showing that kinship families reacted and responded to the impetus to migrate in

different ways from non-kinship families. In an era when communication across the globe

could hinge upon a sporadic letter, and when the city world even a few streets away could be

darkness lost to view, kinship families were drawn and supported by enduring bonds in chain

migrations into or out of each of these communities.

245

Appendix 1

Census surname index data

N P SI N P SI N P SI

York

CSI(H) 159 188 84.6 214 256 83.6 258 307 84

CSI(A) 210 472 44.5 389 909 42.8 435 1005 43.3

CSI(T) 232 847 27.4 405 1395 29 452 1560 29

Holgate

CSI(H) 33 35 94.3 74 82 90.2 98 110 89.1

CSI(A) 48 83 57.8 145 258 56.2 204 383 53.3

CSI(T) 56 133 42.1 156 351 44.5 215 523 41.1

Walmgate

CSI(H) 128 153 83.7 148 174 85.1 168 197 85.3

CSI(A) 168 389 43.2 269 651 41.3 252 622 40.5

CSI(T) 183 714 25.6 279 1044 26.7 261 1037 25.2

Upper Swaledale

CSI(H) 274 1404 19.5 273 1405 19.4 266 1323 20.1

CSI(A) 343 3587 9.6 356 3903 9.1 327 3649 9

CSI(T) 368 6770 5.4 369 6835 5.4 340 6226 5.5

Muker

CSI(H) 82 278 29.5 87 282 30.9 80 236 33.9

CSI(A) 105 718 14.6 113 784 14.4 100 646 15.5

CSI(T) 112 1241 9 114 1323 8.6 106 1017 10.4

Melbecks

CSI(H) 107 337 31.8 97 334 29 97 326 29.8

CSI(A) 133 889 15 122 937 13 116 896 13

CSI(T) 138 1633 8.5 125 1659 7.5 122 1628 7.5

Arkengarthdale

CSI(H) 81 255 31.8 87 265 32.8 86 250 34.4

CSI(A) 102 613 16.6 109 708 15.4 101 688 14.7

CSI(T) 108 1239 8.7 114 1282 8.9 106 1146 9.3

Reeth

CSI(H) 182 534 34.1 181 527 34.4 165 499 33.1

CSI(A) 232 1367 17 242 1474 16.4 221 1419 15.6

CSI(T) 257 2655 9.7 255 2570 9.9 231 2435 9.5

Holgate Road

CSI(H) 33 35 94.3 74 82 90.2 78 83 94

CSI(A) 48 83 57.8 145 258 56.2 149 280 53.2

CSI(T) 56 133 42.1 156 351 44.4 157 384 40.9

St Paul's Terrace

CSI(H)

CSI(A)

CSI(T)

Railway Terrace

CSI(H)

CSI(A)

CSI(T)

St Paul's Square

CSI(H) 24 27 88.9

CSI(A) 71 103 68.9

CSI(T) 74 139 53.2

Long Close Lane

CSI(H) 38 40 95 57 64 89.1 75 84 89.3

CSI(A) 48 92 52.2 137 321 42.7 109 235 46.4

CSI(T) 56 188 29.8 143 518 27.6 111 413 26.9

Hope Street

CSI(H) 97 113 85.8 93 110 84.6 117 144 81.3

CSI(A) 127 293 43.4 134 319 42 154 381 40.4

CSI(T) 136 526 25.9 138 526 26.2 160 624 25.6

Household Composition Household Composition

Muker

MHS 4.5 4.7 4.3

A/H 2.6 2.8 2.7

C/H 1.9 1.9 1.6

Melbecks

MHS 4.8 5 5

A/H 2.6 2.8 2.7

C/H 2.2 2.2 2.3

Arkengarthdale

MHS 4.9 4.8 4.6

A/H 2.4 2.7 2.8

C/H 2.5 2.2 1.8

Reeth

MHS 5 4.9 4.9

A/H 2.6 2.8 2.8

C/H 2.4 2.1 2

Holgate Road

MHS 3.8 4.4 4.6

CPH 1.4 1.2 1.3

St Paul's Terrace

MHS

CPH

Railway Terrace

MHS

CPH

St Paul's Square

MHS 5.2

CPH 1.4

1841 1851 1861

246

[N = Number of surnames; P = Size of population; SI = Surname index]

N P SI N P SI N P SI N P SI

York

CSI(H) 298 356 83.7 327 403 81.1 324 412 78.6 340 430 79.1

CSI(A) 462 1072 43.1 518 1333 38.9 462 1262 36.6 514 1313 39.2

CSI(T) 482 1777 27.1 541 2114 25.6 481 1907 25.2 528 1900 27.8

Holgate

CSI(H) 141 155 91 189 215 87.9 186 223 83.4 197 234 84.2

CSI(A) 265 503 52.7 318 688 46.2 297 736 40.4 340 773 44

CSI(T) 279 725 38.5 332 999 33.2 308 1028 30 348 1020 34.1

Walmgate

CSI(H) 168 201 83.6 151 188 80.3 158 189 83.6 158 196 80.6

CSI(A) 222 569 39 241 645 37.4 197 526 37.5 206 540 38.2

CSI(T) 234 1052 22.2 253 1115 22.7 208 879 23.7 212 880 24.1

Upper Swaledale

CSI(H) 247 1195 20.7 261 1063 24.6 218 794 27.5 210 641 32.8

CSI(A) 304 3329 9.1 334 2927 11.4 279 2105 13.3 270 1705 15.8

CSI(T) 318 5386 5.9 374 4743 7.9 304 3228 9.4 276 2518 11

Muker

CSI(H) 70 213 32.9 68 203 33.5 50 153 32.7 47 138 34.1

CSI(A) 89 597 14.9 89 537 16.6 66 397 16.6 64 366 17.5

CSI(T) 94 912 10.3 92 838 11 72 615 11.7 67 550 12.2

Melbecks

CSI(H) 96 320 30 82 271 30.3 67 169 40 69 132 52.3

CSI(A) 114 865 13.2 102 716 14.3 80 415 19.3 80 333 24

CSI(T) 116 1440 8.1 105 1171 9 85 602 14.1 84 496 19.9

Arkengarthdale

CSI(H) 84 236 35.6 80 223 35.9 72 171 42.1 55 107 51.4

CSI(A) 103 620 16.6 99 606 16.3 87 473 18.4 70 280 25

CSI(T) 107 1025 10.4 106 999 10.6 90 761 11.8 72 428 16.8

Reeth

CSI(H) 162 431 37.6 150 372 40.3 130 302 43.1 122 264 46.2

CSI(A) 204 1247 16.4 198 1068 18.5 165 820 20.1 170 726 23.4

CSI(T) 213 2009 10.6 210 1735 12.1 176 1250 14.1 174 1044 16.7

Holgate Road

CSI(H) 82 89 92.1 79 88 89.8 81 93 87.1 91 97 93.8

CSI(A) 164 299 54.9 167 295 56.6 156 344 45.4 164 319 51.4

CSI(T) 173 398 43.5 173 410 42.2 161 453 35.5 169 412 41

St Paul's Terrace

CSI(H) 27 27 100 64 68 94.1 58 70 82.9 62 70 88.6

CSI(A) 34 72 47.2 85 188 45.2 72 187 38.5 95 225 42.2

CSI(T) 35 118 29.7 92 301 30.6 77 287 26.8 97 305 31.8

Railway Terrace

CSI(H) 12 12 100 31 33 93.9 31 33 93.9 32 33 97

CSI(A) 17 34 50 39 96 40.6 36 93 38.7 46 103 44.7

CSI(T) 17 70 24.3 40 153 26.1 39 155 25.2 47 150 31.3

St Paul's Square

CSI(H) 26 27 96.3 28 29 96.6 30 30 100 34 35 97.1

CSI(A) 65 98 66.3 65 109 59.6 72 112 64.3 81 126 64.3

CSI(T) 71 139 51.1 69 135 51.1 75 133 56.4 84 153 54.9

Long Close Lane

CSI(H) 66 71 93 70 82 85.4 58 66 87.9 65 75 86.7

CSI(A) 92 213 43.2 97 235 41.3 78 185 42.2 78 212 36.8

CSI(T) 98 395 24.8 103 453 22.7 83 338 24.6 80 331 24.2

Hope Street

CSI(H) 110 130 84.6 109 130 83.9 104 123 84.6 103 121 85.1

CSI(A) 140 356 39.3 410 410 37.6 128 341 37.5 140 328 42.7

CSI(T) 146 657 22.2 162 662 24.5 134 541 24.8 143 549 26.1

Household Composition

Muker

MHS 4.3 4.1 4 4

A/H 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.7

C/H 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3

Melbecks

MHS 4.5 4.3 3.6 3.8

A/H 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5

C/H 1.8 1.7 1.1 1.2

Arkengarthdale

MHS 4.3 4.5 4.5 4

A/H 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.6

C/H 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.4

Reeth

MHS 4.7 4.7 4.1 4

A/H 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.8

C/H 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.2

Holgate Road

MHS 4.5 4.8 5 4.3

CPH 1.1 1.4 1.3 1

St Paul's Terrace

MHS 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.4

CPH 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.1

Railway Terrace

MHS 5.8 4.6 4.7 4.6

CPH 3 1.7 1.9 1.5

St Paul's Square

MHS 5.2 4.7 4.4 4.4

CPH 1.6 0.9 0.7 0.8

19011871 1881 1891

247

Appendix 2

Fathers’ surname index data

Start Date End Date Mid-point Date Muker A'dale Grinton Reeth Muker A'dale Grinton Reeth Muker A'dale Grinton Reeth Muker A'dale Grinton Reeth Muker A'dale Grinton Reeth

1802 1821 1811 107 29 365 39 29.3 74.4 826 66 2.3 1.7

1812 1831 1821 107 159 34 370 489 37 28.9 32.5 91.9 791 1166 55 2.1 2.4 1.5

1813 1832 1822 282 630 44.8 1307 2.1

1822 1841 1831 102 170 309 38 353 491 606 51 28.9 34.6 51 74.5 806 1184 1197 75 2.3 2.4 2 1.5

1832 1851 1841 94 210 244 67 291 435 442 104 32.3 48.3 55.2 64.4 744 963 839 146 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.4

1842 1861 1851 226 168 81 408 331 145 55.4 50.8 55.9 877 655 215 2.2 2 1.5

1852 1871 1861 106 194 54.6 303 1.6

1862 1881 1871 103 215 47.9 366 1.7

1872 1881 1876 23 40 57.5 59 1.5

1872 1891 1881 58 82 72 168 80.6 48.8 164 289 2.3 1.7

1880 1899 1889 50 62 80.7 120 1.9

1882 1901 1891 66 116 56.9 202 1.7

1892 1900 1896 19 26 73.1 42 1.6

Number of Surnames Number of Fathers Fathers' Surname Index Number of Babies Number of Babies per Father

248

Appendix 2

Fathers’ surname index data

Baptisms in the parish registers of Swaledale have been transcribed into an Excel spreadsheet. Fields in this

spreadsheet include Surname, Father’s Forename, and Mother’s Forename. All surnames for a study period are

highlighted and duplicates removed; remaining originals provide the number of surnames for the surname index.

Fields of Surname, Father’s Forename and Mother’s Forename are combined into a separate new field,

highlighted, and duplicates removed; remaining originals provide the number of fathers for the surname index.

A relatively small number of illegitimate births are present in the spreadsheet, which introduce a relatively small

error into the surname indices. Fathers’ surname indices are calculated from a moving 20 year cycle centred on

the years of the decennial censuses and corresponding preceding decades, ie the FSI centred on 1841 is

calculated from the entries transcribed from the years 1832 to 1851.

Baptisms were transcribed by Marion Hearfield, Marion Moverley, Christine Amsden and Tracy Little of The

Upper Dales Family History Society.

Muker

The nineteenth-century baptisms in the parish records of St Mary Muker have been transcribed from 1800 to

1900. There are 2 gaps in the register, from 1855 to 1871 and from 1882 to 1891. Consequently FSIs

calculated from a moving 20 year cycle centred on the years of the decennial censuses and preceding decades

are available only for the years 1811, 1821, 1831 and 1841. However, an FSI centred on the year 1876 is

available from a moving 10 year cycle between the years 1872 and 1881, and an FSI centred on the year 1896 is

available from a moving 9 year cycle between the years 1892 and 1900.

Arkengarthdale

The nineteenth-century baptisms in the records of Arkengarthdale parish church have been transcribed from

1800 to 1861. However, mother’s forenames are not recorded until 1810. Consequently FSIs calculated from a

moving 20 year cycle centred on the years of the decennial censuses and preceding decades are available only

for the years 1821, 1831, 1841 and 1851.

Grinton

The nineteenth-century baptisms in the parish records of St Andrews Church, Grinton, have been transcribed

into 2 databases: 1. From 1808 to 1866; mothers’ forenames are not recorded consistently until 1813. The

transcribers noted that there appeared to be gaps in the registers. 2. From 1866 to 1899; the register also

appears to be incomplete since there is marked variation in the number of baptisms recorded in each year.

These two databases are in different formats but have been amalgamated.

Because complete entries are not available for the year 1812, the FSI for 1821 is approximated to 1822.

Similarly because entries are not available after 1899, the FSI for 1891 is approximated to 1889. FSIs are not

available for the years 1811, 1861, 1871 and 1901 because of incomplete entries in the registers.

Reeth

The nineteenth-century baptisms have been transcribed and amalgamated from Reeth Congregational Register

(1800 to 1837) and Reeth Methodists Register (1839 to 1901). Consequently FSIs calculated from a moving 20

year cycle centred on the years of the decennial censuses and preceding decades are available for the years 1811,

1821, 1831, 1841, 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881 and 1891.

249

Appendix 3

Cohorts surname index data

N P SI N P SI N P SI N P SI N P SI N P SI

York

0-16 yrs 194 518 37.5 220 582 37.8 247 743 33.2 267 836 31.9 233 694 33.6 214 635 33.7

17-25 yrs 186 279 66.7 201 298 67.5 196 272 72.1 239 371 64.4 210 322 65.2 208 342 60.8

26-59 yrs 271 503 53.9 305 585 52.1 351 653 53.8 383 772 49.6 342 723 47.3 377 753 50.1

>60 yrs 75 95 79 82 95 86.3 91 109 83.5 108 135 80 119 166 71.7 117 169 69.2

Swaledale

0-16 yrs 255 3043 8.4 238 2714 8.8 223 2180 10.2 229 1882 12.2 193 1188 16.3 158 860 18.4

17-25 yrs 226 1010 22.4 208 981 21.2 188 875 21.5 181 694 26.1 141 478 29.5 133 352 37.8

26-59 yrs 291 2247 13 271 2086 13 265 1891 14 277 1707 16.2 234 1216 19.2 223 1018 21.9

>60 yrs 173 516 33.5 153 432 35.4 164 432 38 164 446 36.8 127 342 37.1 131 287 45.7

1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

250

Appendix 4

Isonymic Families of Holgate Road 1841 to 1901

Surname Forename DoB PoB

1st Gen

Mawson Ann 1801 Yorks Seaton Ross Holgate Lane Laundress Laundress

Mawson Jonathan 1756 Holgate Lane Independent

Mawson Joseph 1806 York Holgate Lane Stonemason Holgate Lane Stonemason

Barker Mary 1785 Yorks Grafton 19 Holgate Lane Proprietor of houses

Barker Giles A 1786 Dorset Wareham Holgate Lane Proprietor of houses

Day Septimus 1824 York Holgate Crescent Linen draper

Day James 1823 York Holgate Terrace Linen draper

Hodgson Eliza 1806 York Holgate Road Landed proprietor

Hodgson Annabella 1811 Bradford Holgate Terrace Clergyman's wife

Jackson George 1823 Yorks Stillingfleet Holgate Lane Tobacconist

Jackson Catherine 1774 Yorks Osbaldwick Holgate Lane Annuitant

Jackson Mary 1801 Durham Cracker 4 Holgate Lane Huckster

Rhodes Thomas 1821 Yorks Wetherby Holgate Lane Saddler

Rhodes Jane 1832 York Holgate Crescent Schoolmistress

Richardson Mary 1795 Yorks Dalton Holgate Road Stonemason's wife

Richardson George 1817 York Holgate Lane Shoemaker 84 Holgate Road Cow keeper 84 Holgate Road Cow keeper

Whitehead John 1807 Ripon Holgate Lane Engine fitter

Whitehead James 1820 York Holgate Terrace Draper and silk mercer

Atkinson John 1811 York 10 Holgate Road Servant

Atkinson Sarah 1838 York Rose Cottage Annuitant

Fawsitt Robert 1793 Yorks Smeaton 3 Holgate Terrace Retired farmer

Fawcett Thomas 1815 Durham 56 Holgate Terrace Inspector of taxes IR

Harrison Richard 1816 Yorks Gilling 76 Holgate Road Joiner 76 Holgate Road Joiner

Harrison William 1812 Yorks Wheldrake 77 Holgate Road Bricklayer 77 Holgate Road Bricklayer

Richardson Thomas 1805 Wakefield 25 Blenheim Place Holgate Road Stonemason

Thompson Mary 1817 Wakefield 5 Holgate Road Milliner

Thompson Elizabeth 1801 Long Marston West Parade Holgate Road Proprietor

Gray Thomas 1808 Yorks Fangfoss 79 Holgate Road Provision dealer

Gray Robert 1847 York 3 Blenheim Place Master joiner

Lawson Thomas 1831 York 23 West Parade Bookseller

Lawson William 1810 Yorks Fulford 43 Holgate Crescent Retired builder

Powell Richard 1800 Tadcaster 6 West Parade Carpenter

Powell James 1842 York 5 Blenheim Place Engine fitter

Richardson Hannah 1816 York 3 Holgate Road

Richardson William 1843 York 7&8 Holgate Road Butcher

Widdowson Benjamin 1811 Leic Ashby de la Zouch 22 West Parade Clerk Inland Revenue

Widdowson Elizabeth 1827 Lincoln 59 Holgate Terrace

Daniel Mary 1841 Yorks Whixley

Daniel John 1827 Yorks Whixley

Hatlee/Hattee George 1854 York

Hatlee/Hattee Joseph 1831 Yorks Thorne

Hawkin/s John Horsley 1843 Poppleton

Hawkin/s Thomas 1838 Poppleton

Pickering John 1828 Acaster Malbis

Pickering Parker 1830 Bishopthorpe

Robinson William 1833 Durham Old Shildon

Robinson Mary 1828 Ireland Wicklow

Spenc/s/e Esther 1818 Newcastle

Spenc/s/e Richard 1854 Spofforth

Spenc/s/e Jemima 1812 Dewsbury

Stephenson William 1844 Yorks Stokesley

Stephenson Elizabeth 1822 Moor Monkton

Taylor John 1819 York St Crux

Taylor John 1837 Yorks *

Daniel Mary 1831 Whitby

Forbes James 1825 Glasgow

Forbes Georgiana 1816 Durham Wellington

Harrison George 1833 Rufforth

Harrison John 1853 Whitby

Sanderson Robert 1846 York

Sanderson Ann 1812 Driffield

Smith Ruth 1823 York

Smith James 1828 Coxwold

Smith George 1854 Dringhouses

Smith William 1831 Yorks Bingley

Stephenson George 1850 Yorks Great Duffield

Webster Jane 1837 York

Webster U* 1862 York

Wright John 1832 Newcastle

Wright Honor 1853 London

Forbes Georgiana 1851 Banbury Oxon

Richardson Walker 1820 Knapton

Richardson George 1865 York

Taylor Alfred 1865 Leeds

Taylor John 1819 York

Thompson John 1855 Dunnington

Thompson Thomas 1866 York

1841 1851 1861 1871

251


1st Gen

Mawson Ann 1801 Yorks Seaton Ross

Mawson Jonathan 1756

Mawson Joseph 1806 York

Barker Mary 1785 Yorks Grafton

Barker Giles A 1786 Dorset Wareham

Day Septimus 1824 York

Day James 1823 York

Hodgson Eliza 1806 York

Hodgson Annabella 1811 Bradford

Jackson George 1823 Yorks Stillingfleet

Jackson Catherine 1774 Yorks Osbaldwick

Jackson Mary 1801 Durham Cracker

Rhodes Thomas 1821 Yorks Wetherby

Rhodes Jane 1832 York

Richardson Mary 1795 Yorks Dalton

Richardson George 1817 York

Whitehead John 1807 Ripon

Whitehead James 1820 York

Atkinson John 1811 York

Atkinson Sarah 1838 York

Fawsitt Robert 1793 Yorks Smeaton

Fawcett Thomas 1815 Durham

Harrison Richard 1816 Yorks Gilling

Harrison William 1812 Yorks Wheldrake

Richardson Thomas 1805 Wakefield

Thompson Mary 1817 Wakefield

Thompson Elizabeth 1801 Long Marston

Gray Thomas 1808 Yorks Fangfoss

Gray Robert 1847 York

Lawson Thomas 1831 York

Lawson William 1810 Yorks Fulford

Powell Richard 1800 Tadcaster

Powell James 1842 York

Richardson Hannah 1816 York

Richardson William 1843 York 6&7 Holgate Rd Butcher

Widdowson Benjamin 1811 Leic Ashby de la Zouch

Widdowson Elizabeth 1827 Lincoln

Daniel Mary 1841 Yorks Whixley 37 Holgate Crescent Gentlewoman Holgate Crescent Living on own means

Daniel John 1827 Yorks Whixley 2 Holgate Terrace

Hatlee/Hattee George 1854 York 2 Holgate Road Telegraph

Hatlee/Hattee Joseph 1831 Yorks Thorne 21 West Parade Telegraph Clerk

Hawkin/s John Horsley 1843 Poppleton 79 Holgate Road Dairyman & Grocer Holgate Road * Dairyman & Coal merchant

Hawkin/s Thomas 1838 Poppleton 4 Holgate Road Fruiterer & Gardener Holgate Road Photographic artist

Pickering John 1828 Acaster Malbis Holgate Hill Retired woolen merchant

Pickering Parker 1830 Bishopthorpe 59 Holgate Hill Annuitant

Robinson William 1833 Durham Old Shildon 10 Holgate Road Johnson's Yard Engineer

Robinson Mary 1828 Ireland Wicklow 38 Holgate Crescent Gentlewoman

Spenc/s/e Esther 1818 Newcastle 67 Holgate Road Gentlewoman

Spenc/s/e Richard 1854 Spofforth 83 Holgate Road Locomotive fireman

Spenc/s/e Jemima 1812 Dewsbury 60 Holgate Hill Dividends

Stephenson William 1844 Yorks Stokesley 64 Holgate Road Auditor NER Holgate Crescent Railway auditor

Stephenson Elizabeth 1822 Moor Monkton 70 Holgate Road Annuitant Holgate Road * Living on own means

Taylor John 1819 York St Crux Holly Bank Retired grocer

Taylor John 1837 Yorks * 6 Holgate Terrace *

Daniel Mary 1831 Whitby 3 Holgate Terrace Living on own means

Forbes James 1825 Glasgow Holgate Road Cabinet maker 3 Blenheim Place Cabinet maker

Forbes Georgiana 1816 Durham Wellington 53 Holgate Terrace Living on own means

Harrison George 1833 Rufforth Holgate Road Head waiter

Harrison John 1853 Whitby Holgate Road * Carriage builder

Sanderson Robert 1846 York Johnson's Yard Brush maker

Sanderson Ann 1812 Driffield Holgate Road Inmate of hospital

Smith Ruth 1823 York Johnson's Yard Charring washing

Smith James 1828 Coxwold Holgate Road Carriage builder 21 Holgate Road Railway carriage builder retired

Smith George 1854 Dringhouses Holgate Road * Gas dealer

Smith William 1831 Yorks Bingley Holgate Road * Land surveyor 67 Holgate Road Land agents clerk

Stephenson George 1850 Yorks Great Duffield Holgate Road * Shoeing smith

Webster Jane 1837 York Holgate Road * Butcher

Webster U* 1862 York Holgate Road Tinner and Iron monger

Wright John 1832 Newcastle Holgate Road Carriage painter

Wright Honor 1853 London Holgate Road Lodging house keeper

Forbes Georgiana 1851 Banbury Oxon 53 Holgate Terrace

Richardson Walker 1820 Knapton 2 Bentley's Yard Railway carriage cleaner

Richardson George 1865 York Rose Cottage Holgate Hill Railway engine fitter

Taylor Alfred 1865 Leeds Polvellan Holgate Road Mechanical engineer

Taylor John 1819 York Holly Bank Holgate Hill Merchant retired

Thompson John 1855 Dunnington 34 Holgate Crescent Monumental mason

Thompson Thomas 1866 York 54 Holgate Terrace Auctioneer & Valuer

19011881 1891

252

Appendix 5: Isonymic Families of St Paul’s Terrace 1881 to 1901

Appendix 6: Isonymic Families of Railway Terrace 1881 to 1901

Appendix 7: Isonymic Families of St Paul’s Square 1861 to 1901


1st Gen

Birch William 1854 Durham Gateshead 21 SPT Railway carriage builder

Birch William 1821 Durham Winlaton 22 SPT Railway carriage builder

Byers Thomas 1855 Scotland 18 SPT Railway wagon greaser

Byers William 1834 Cumberland Ainstable 23 SPT Railway wagon builder

Smith John G 1820 Yorks Seaton Ross 59 SPT Railway ticket examiner 59 SPT Railway ticket examiner 59 SPT Railway ticket examiner York station

Smith William 1842 Tadcaster 12 SPT Sawyer 9 SPT Labourer

Thompson George 1845 Yorks Campsall 42 SPT Wheelwright 42 SPT Joiner* 42 SPT Railway wagon builder

Thompson Peter 1849 Norton 41 SPT Railway engine driver

Alport Adam 1860 Durham Gateshead 34 SPT Blacksmith

Alport John 1825 Newcastle 39 SPT Blacksmith

Gibson Joseph 1850 Yorks Husthwaite 57 SPT House carpenter

Gibson Robert 1846 Lincs Toynton 68 SPT Waggon builder

Hall William 1856 Darlington 11 SPT Carriage trimmer

Hall Robert 1832 Darlington 70 SPT Boiler smith

Malthouse William 1855 York 51 SPT Shoemaker

Malthouse Thomas 1829 Ripon 52 SPT Engine driver

Malthouse Thomas 1854 Manchester 31 SPT Engine driver

Simpson William 1863 Yorks Sherburn 2 SPT Railway stoker

Simpson Edward 1851 York 22 SPT Waggon builder 53 SPT Railway wagon builder

Simpson George 1853 York 23 SPT Railway signal fitter 23 SPT Railway signal inspector

Simpson Philip 1854 Haxby 47 SPT Railway foreman porter

Smith Henry R 1852 Bingley 36 SPT Carriage builder 41 SPT Joiner

Smith David 1843 Sherburn 47 SPT Engine driver

Stabler Thomas 1862 York 5 SPT Gardner Domestic servant

Stabler Martha 1828 Acomb 16 SPT Lets lodgings

Thompson William 1847 Yorks Kirkstall* 46 SPT Coachman & Gardener 46 SPT Coachman gardener

Byrne Charles 1856 Lancs Skerton 56 SPT Railway coach plummer

Byrne John 1850 Lancs Ikerton 44 SPT Railway foreman carriage shop worker

Hutton Joseph 1847 Bishopthorpe 55 SPT Joiner

Hutton Edward J 1872 Moor Monkton 14 SPT Railway goods porter

Shaw Henry 1865 York 37 SPT Printer compositor

Shaw Joseph 1869 Crewe 30 SPT Railway coach builder

Census

1881 1891 1901


1st Gen

Middleton John 1852 Malton 1 RT Shoemaker

Middleton William 1851 Malton 14 RT Railway wagon builder

Rotherham Samuel 1837 Liverpool 4 RT Engine fitter

Rotherham Elizabeth 1847 Liverpool 5 RT Dressmaker

Cooper Wilson 1843 Yorks Farndale 26 RT Waggon builder 26 RT Railway joiner

Cooper Matthew 1853 Yorks Stockton on Forrest 29 RT Blacksmith 29 RT Blacksmith

Rennison John 1817 Acomb 32 RT Living on own means

Rennison William 1859 York 33 RT Railway shunter

Census

1881 1891 1901


1st Gen

Sanderson Sarah 1818 York SPS Fundholder

Sanderson Joseph 1783 Ireland 16 SPS Master of 47 Regiment

Sanderson Henry 1810 Yorks Drypool 7 SPS Timber & slate merchant

Wilson James 1820 Hull SPS Goods manager NER

Wilson George 1807 York SPS Retired tradesman 28 SPS Rent of Business

Fletcher Fanny 1799 Hull 5 SPS Clergyman widow

Fletcher Thomas 1822 Scotland 1 SPS Carpenter

Wilson John 1842 York 21 SPS Mahogany Merchant

Newman William 1826 York 22 SPS Actuary

Newman Philip 1859 York 23 SPS Actuary of Insurance Co

1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

253

Appendix 8

Isonymic Families of Long Close Lane 1841 to 1901

Appendices 8 and 9 list all those isonymic families in Long Close Lane and Hope Street in which there were at

least 2 household heads in any census. The tables list for each family the place of origin of the first arrival of a

head of household, the number of heads of household at each census year, and the total number of heads

between 1841 and 1901. The stippled boxes indicate census years before the first arrival of a head of household.

Heads of household of the same surname who originated from Ireland and elsewhere are counted as separate

kinship families; similar heads who originated from more than one place in England are counted as the same

isonymic family. Long Close Lane was built in 1810 and Hope Street between 1823 and 1830 (C.B. Knight, A

History of the City of York (York, 1944), p. 668), and the assumption is made for the purpose of this study that

none of the kinship families listed arrived before 1841.

Origin Total Heads

1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

Calpin Ireland 3 2 5 2 4 16

Brannon Ireland 7 1 1 1 2 1 13

Gallagher Ireland 1 2 2 3 1 9

Kelly Ireland 1 1 2 4 8

McDonald Tadcaster 1 1 2 2 1 7

Thompson Ireland 1 1 1 1 3 7

Hennigan Ireland 2 1 1 2 6

Morris Ireland 1 3 1 1 6

Riley Tadcaster 1 1 2 2 6

Smith Yorkshire 1 1 2 2 6

Loftus Ireland 1 1 1 2 5

Murray Ireland 1 2 1 1 5

Rowan Ireland 1 2 1 1 5

Wilson Pocklington 1 1 1 2 5

Dale York 1 2 1 4

Judson York 2 2 4

White London 1 2 1 4

Igo Ireland 2 1 3

Johnson Yorkshire 1 2 3

Reed Yorkshire 2 1 3

Welsh Ireland 3 3

Betchette Malton 2 2

Bowland Yorkshire 2 2

Diamond Ireland 2 2

Dixon York 2 2

Foster York 2 2

Mellody Ireland 2 2

Heads of Household

254

Appendix 9

Isonymic Families of Hope Street 1841 to 1901

Origin Total Heads

1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

Smith Yorkshire 1 2 4 1 1 1 5 15

Brown Yorkshire 3 4 3 1 1 12

Thompson Yorkshire 5 4 1 1 11

Calpin York 1 4 5 10

Ryan Ireland & York 4 1 2 1 1 9

Flannigan Ireland 1 3 1 2 7

Jones Ireland 1 2 1 2 1 7

Kirby Yorkshire 1 1 2 2 1 7

Shepherd Yorkshire 1 2 1 1 1 1 7

Watson Yorkshire 2 2 2 1 7

Battle/Bartle Ireland 1 1 1 3 6

Benson Yorkshire 1 1 2 2 6

Brannon Ireland 1 1 1 2 1 6

Gaughan Ireland 1 2 1 2 6

Grogan Ireland 2 2 2 6

McHale Ireland 1 2 1 2 6

Perry York 1 1 1 2 1 6

Steel Yorkshire 1 1 2 1 1 6

Wood Yorkshire 1 1 2 1 1 6

Barrett Ireland 2 2 1 5

Burke Ireland 2 1 2 5

Dixon Yorkshire 2 3 5

Halder Yorkshire 1 2 1 1 5

Horsman York 1 1 1 2 5

McGough Ireland 1 3 1 5

Myers Yorkshire 1 1 2 1 5

O'Hara Ireland 1 2 2 5

Rowan York 2 2 1 5

Welsh Ireland 1 1 1 2 5

Whitehead Yorkshire 2 2 1 5

Bean Melbourne & Ireland 2 2 4

Brady Ireland 2 1 1 4

Calvert York 1 1 2 4

Carey Yorkshire 2 1 1 4

Carr Yorkshire 2 1 1 4

Hobson Grantham 1 1 2 4

Johnson York 2 1 1 4

Lamb Not Yorkshire 1 1 2 4

McDonald Ireland 1 1 2 4

Wilson Yorkshire 2 1 1 4

Heads of Household

255

Origin Total Heads

1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

Abbey Fulford 1 2 3

Allen Ireland 1 2 3

Cawley Ireland 1 2 3

Dale York 1 2 3

Harrison Scarborough & Malton 2 1 3

Igo Ireland 1 2 3

James Yorkshire 1 2 3

Mooney Ireland 2 1 3

Myton Pocklington & Cranswick 2 1 3

Pawson York 1 2 3

Roche Ireland 2 1 3

Sanderson Yorkshire 2 1 3

Slater Yorkshire 2 1 3

Snape York 2 1 3

Watkinson York 1 2 3

Wells Towthorpe 1 2 3

Baines Ireland & York 2 2

Belchette York 2 2

Caveny Ireland 2 2

Craven Yorkshire 2 2

Dawes Bickerton & Wheldrake 2 2

Egan Ireland 2 2

Fox Hutton Cranswick & Ireland 2 2

Gough Ireland 2 2

Hill Ireland 2 2

McCabe Ireland 2 2

Martino Italy 2 2

Mellody Ireland 2 2

Palliser Sowerby & Sutton 2 2

Passmore Somerset & Ireland 2 2

Roddy Ireland 2 2

Schofield Wilbefoss & York 2 2

Vant Yorkshire 2 2

Heads of Household

256

Appendix 10

Family Plots of Long Close Lane and Hope Street

The 10 men highlighted in red are known to have enlisted to serve in WW1 (see Chapter 6:

Community and Kinship Families in York).

Calpin Family of Long Close Lane and Hope Street

1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

Surname DoB Birth

2nd Gen 3rd Gen 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

Calpin James 1834 Ireland 1 DoYP George St LCL Died 1887

Lalley Wife Mary Ann 1837 Ireland 1 DoYP LCL

Calpin Margaret 1857 York 1 DoYP LCL

Calpin Catherine 1861 York 1 DoYP

Calpin Rosealinn 1871 York LCL

Calpin Michael 1836 Ireland 4 DoYP 22 LCL LCL 56 HS 12 LCL

Melody Wife Bridget 1839 Ireland 4 DoYP 22 LCL LCL 56 HS 12 LCL

Calpin James 1856 York 4 DoYP 22 LCL 50 HS 50 HS 31 HS

Walder Wife Ellen 1860 York 50 HS 50 HS 31 HS

Calpin John 1877 York 50 HS 50 HS 31 HS

Calpin Mary A 1879 York 50 HS 50 HS 31 HS

Calpin James 1880 York 50 HS

Calpin Sarah 1883 York 50 HS 31 HS

Calpin Kate 1887 York 50 HS

Calpin Margaret 1888 York 50 HS 31 HS

Calpin Ellen 1891 York 50 HS

Calpin Elizabeth 1894 York 31 HS

Calpin William 1896 York 31 HS

Calpin James 1901 York 31 HS

Calpin Norah 1904 York

Calpin Patrick 1857 York 4 DoYP 22 LCL 25 HS

McDonald Wife Sarah 1856 York 25 HS

Calpin William 1883 York 25 HS

Calpin Thomas 1885 York 25 HS

Calpin Martin 1887 York 25 HS

Calpin Hannah 1889 York 25 HS

Calpin Arthur 1891 York 25 HS

Calpin Henry 1893 York 25 HS

Calpin Ernest 1895 York 25 HS

Calpin David 1897 York 25 HS

Calpin John 1859 York 4 DoYP 22 LCL 17 LCL 17 LCL

Wife Annie 1862 York 17 LCL

Calpin Michael 1861 York 4 DoYP 22 LCL LCL

Calpin Martin 1866 York 22 LCL LCL 56 HS 12 LCL

Calpin Thomas 1868 York 22 LCL LCL 56 HS 12 LCL

Calpin Anthony 1870 York 22 LCL LCL 56 HS 65 HS

Calpin Mary E 1899 York 65 HS

Calpin Mary A 1897 York 65 HS

Calpin Thomas 1900 York 65 HS

Calpin William 1874 York LCL 56 HS 12 LCL

Calpin Bridget 1876 York LCL 56 HS 12 LCL

Calpin Joseph 1879 York LCL 56 HS 12 LCL

Calpin Mary Ann 1878 York 56 HS 12 LCL

Calpin John 1831 Ireland 9 LCL LCL LCL Died 1889

Conway Wife Hannah 1826 Ireland 9 LCL LCL LCL

Calpin James 1853 York 9 LCL LCL LCL

Calpin Patrick 1854 York 9 LCL LCL

Calpin Mary 1857 York 9 LCL LCL

Calpin John 1860 York 9 LCL

Calpin Catherin 1862 York LCL LCL

Calpin Joseph 1865 York LCL LCL

Calpin Patrick 1858 York 46 Yard HS 2 Carey's Yard, HS 57 HS

Ann 1858 York 46 Yard HS 2 Carey's Yard, HS 57 HS

Calpin James 1881 York 46 Yard HS 2 Carey's Yard, HS

Calpin Ellen 1884 York 2 Carey's Yard, HS

Calpin Martin 1885 York 2 Carey's Yard, HS 57 HS

Calpin Margaret 1888 York 2 Carey's Yard, HS 57 HS

Calpin William 1890 York 2 Carey's Yard, HS 57 HS

Calpin Joseph 1895 York 57 HS

Patrick (b 1800) &

Mary from MayoFarrell (b 1828) Calpin Farroll 1849 Ireland 7 LCL 15 LCL 15 LCL

Gallagher Ann 1852 York 7 LCL 15 LCL 15 LCL

Calpin Martin 1875 York 7 LCL 15 LCL 15 LCL

Calpin James 1877 York 7 LCL 15 LCL 3 Benton Row, HS

Melvin Wife Ellen 1872 York 3 Benton Row, HS

Calpin James 1901 York 3 Benton Row, HS

Calpin Bridget 1881 York 7 LCL 15 LCL 15 LCL

Calpin Joseph 1883 York 15 LCL 15 LCL

Calpin Annie 1885 York 15 LCL

Calpin Patrick 1887 York 15 LCL 15 LCL

Calpin Eliza 1891 York 15 LCL

Calpin John 1855 Durham Wolviston 7 LCL

Ellen 1855 Yorks Stockbridge 7 LCL

Mary 1841 Ireland Mitchel's Yard, HS

Calpin James 1867 York Mitchel's Yard, HS

Calpin Patrick 1878 York 1 Wilsons Yard, LCL

Lillie 1882 York 1 Wilsons Yard, LCL

Hal

f b

roth

ers

Patrick (b 1800) & 2nd wife Margaret

Parents Forename Census

1st Gen

Bro

ther

s Ja

mes

an

d P

atri

ck

James & Margaret from Mayo

Bro

ther

sJames & Margaret from Mayo

Patrick (b 1800) & Mary from Mayo

257

Brannan Family of Long Close Lane

Surname DoB Birth

1st Gen 2nd Gen 3rd Gen 4th Gen 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

Brannan Mary 1836 Ireland LCL

Brannan Ann 1838 Ireland LCL

Brannon Patrick 1814 Ireland LCL

Elizabeth 1815 Ireland LCL

Brannon John 1838 Ireland LCL

Brannon Mary 1840 Ireland LCL

Brannon Bridget 1842 Ireland LCL

Brannon Margaret 1849 York LCL

Brannan Thomas 1809 Ireland LCL


Brannen Ambrose 1781 Ireland LCL

Mary 1788 Ireland LCL

Brannen John 1821 Ireland LCL

Brannen Falim 1824 Ireland LCL

Brannan Thomas 1811 Ireland LCLWenlock St,

Walmgate

Cecily 1811 Ireland LCLWenlock St,

Walmgate

Back Yard,

LCL

Brannan John 1835 Ireland LCL


Brannan Patrick 1841 Ireland LCLWenlock St,

WalmgateLCL

Lewis' Yard,

LCL

Margaret 1851York or

IrelandLCL

Lewis' Yard,

LCL

Brannan John 1875 York LCL

Brannan Secilia 1877 York LCLLewis' Yard,

LCL

Naughton Margaret 1900 YorkLewis' Yard,

LCL

Brannan Mary 1879 York LCL

Brannan Patrick 1881 York LCLLewis' Yard,

LCL

Brannan Margaret 1886 YorkLewis' Yard,

LCL

Brannan Ann 1890 YorkLewis' Yard,

LCL

Brannan Catherine 1892 YorkLewis' Yard,

LCL

Brannan Thomas 1895 YorkLewis' Yard,

LCL

Brannan Ellen 1897 YorkLewis' Yard,

LCL

Brannan Michael 1850 York LCLWenlock St,

Walmgate

Back Yard,

LCL

5 Skeltons

Yard, LCL

Ebor Court,

Walmgate

Ann 1855 York5 Skeltons

Yard, LCL

Ebor Court,

Walmgate

Brannan Thomas 1877 York5 Skeltons

Yard, LCL

Brannan Mary 1881 York5 Skeltons

Yard, LCL

Brannan Cecilia 1885 York5 Skeltons

Yard, LCL

Ebor Court,

Walmgate

Brannan Margaret 1887 York5 Skeltons

Yard, LCL

Brannan Catherine 1889 York5 Skeltons

Yard, LCL

Brannan Michael 1895 YorkEbor Court,

Walmgate

Brannan Ambrose 1828 Ireland LCLClancy's Yard,

Walmgate

Bridget 1825 Ireland LCLClancy's Yard,

Walmgate

Brannan Mary 1851 York LCLClancy's Yard,

Walmgate

Brannan John 1853 YorkClancy's Yard,

Walmgate

Brannan Ann 1855 YorkClancy's Yard,

Walmgate

Brannan Patrick 1859 YorkClancy's Yard,

Walmgate

Winefred 1806 Ireland LCL

Brannon Patrick 1844 York LCL

Brannon John 1846 York LCL

Brenan James 1831 Ireland 2 LCL

Brenan Bridget 1839 Ireland 2 LCL

Brennan Michael 1831 Ireland 7 LCL LCL

Catherine 1835 Ireland 7 LCL LCL

Brennan Mary 1858 York 7 LCL LCL

Brennan Catherin 1862 York LCL

Brennan James 1855 Ireland LCL

Brannon Tom 1876 York LCL

Brannon Thomas 1848 Ireland1Lewis

Yard, LCL

Kate 1851 Ireland1Lewis

Yard, LCL

Brannon Mary A 1876 Goole1Lewis

Yard, LCL

Queen St,

Wigan

Brannon Sibina 1878 Goole1Lewis

Yard, LCL

Brannon Tom 1881 Leeds1Lewis

Yard, LCL

Brannon Michael 1884 Hull1Lewis

Yard, LCL

Brannon Kate 1886 Hull1Lewis

Yard, LCL

Brannon Orney 1888 Hull1Lewis

Yard, LCL

Forename Census

258

Gallagher Family of Long Close Lane

Surname DoB Birth

1st Gen 2nd Gen 3rd Gen 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

Gallagher John 1791 Ireland LCL

Gallagher Bridget 1821 Ireland LCL

Gallagher Catherine 1839 Ireland LCL

Bridget 1831 Ireland 9 LCL

Gallagher Bridget 1851 York 9 LCL

Gallagher Patrick 1846 Ireland 9 LCL

Gallagher Thomas 1864 York 9 LCL 8 LCL

Wife Margaret 1869 York 8 LCL

Gallagher Bridget 1891 York 8 LCL

Gallagher John 1839 Ireland LCL LCL 7 Walkers Yd, LCL 4 Pawsons Yd, LCL

Mary 1839 Ireland LCL LCL 7 Walkers Yd, LCL

Gallagher Bridget 1858 Ireland LCL

Gallagher Thomas 1866 York LCL LCL

Gallagher John W 1870 York LCL LCL

Gallagher Patrick 1874 York LCL 7 Walkers Yd, LCL

Gallagher James 1876 York LCL

Gologher James 1821 Ireland 11 LCL

Bridget 1821 Ireland 11 LCL

Gologher Patrick 1851 Ireland 11 LCL

Gologher John 1853 York 11 LCL

Gologher Mary 1876 York 11 LCL

Gallagher Jane 1828 Ireland 23 LCL

Gallagher Patrick 1855 York 23 LCL

Jordan Mary 1828 Ireland 23 LCL

Gallagher John 1860 Ireland 23 LCL

Forename Census

259

Kelly Family of Long Close Lane

Surname DoB Birth Census

1st Gen 2nd Gen 3rd Gen 1851 1861 1871 1881

Kelly William 1816 Ireland DoYP

Ann 1816 Ireland DoYP

Kelly James 1829 Ireland DoYP

Kelly Jane 1831 Ireland DoYP

Kelly William 1836 Yorkshire DoYP

Kelly Richard 1838 Yorkshire DoYP

Kelly Alexander 1841 Yorkshire DoYP

Kelly Thomas 1830 Ireland 9 LCL

Winifred 1833 Ireland 9 LCL

Margaret 1821 Ireland 16 LCL LCL

Kelly Mary 1850 Yorks Abberford 16 LCL

Kelly Peter 1858 York 16 LCL LCL

Kelly Margaret 1867 York 16 LCL LCL

Kelly Patrick 1831 Ireland 2 Back Yard LCL

Margaret 1841 Ireland 2 Back Yard LCL

Kelly Richard 1852 York 2 Back Yard LCL

Kelly John 1856 York 2 Back Yard LCL

Kelly John 1841 Ireland Yard LCL

Mary 1841 Ireland Yard LCL

Kelly Ann 1861 Ireland Yard LCL

Kelly Thomas 1867 York Yard LCL

Kelly John 1846 Ireland LCL

Mary 1848 York LCL

Kelly John 1866 York LCL

Kelly Thomas 1877 York LCL

Kelly James 1881 York LCL

Kelly Patrick 1853 Ireland LCL

Ellen 1861 Newcastle LCL

Kelly Mary 1880 York LCL

Kelly Ann 1881 York LCL

Forename

260

MacDonald Family of Long Close Lane

Surname DoB Birth

1st Gen 2nd Gen 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891

MacDonald Daniel 1825 Tadcaster LCL 10 LCL Square & Compass

Isabella 1824 Malton LCL 10 LCL Square & Compass

Mary 1850 Malton LCL 10 LCL Square & Compass

John 1861 York 10 LCL Square & Compass

MacDonald Thomas 1821 Ireland 32 LCL

Margaret 1816 Ireland 32 LCL

James 1847 Ireland 32 LCL

Mary 1853 York 32 LCL

Thomas 1856 York 32 LCL

MacDonald Michael 1831 Ireland 5 Duke of York Place

Bridget 1836 Ireland 5 Duke of York Place

Patrick 1855 Ireland 5 Duke of York Place

J 1857 Ireland 5 Duke of York Place

Rose 1859 Ireland 5 Duke of York Place

Joseph 1861 Ireland 5 Duke of York Place

Maria 1865 York 5 Duke of York Place

MacDonald Ann 1837 Ireland LCL

Fanny 1866 York LCL

Anthony 1868 York LCL

Thomas 1855 York LCL

Michael 1873 York LCL

MacDonald James 1831 Ireland 5 Duke of York Place

Ann 1836 Ireland 5 Duke of York Place 43 Duke of York Place

Anthony 1860 York 5 Duke of York Place

Kate 1862 York 5 Duke of York Place

Ann 1865 Malton 5 Duke of York Place

James 1867 Malton 5 Duke of York Place 43 Duke of York Place

Ellen 1870 Malton 5 Duke of York Place

Rose 1872 York 5 Duke of York Place

Thomas 1876 York 5 Duke of York Place 43 Duke of York Place

Forename Census

261

Thompson Family of Long Close Lane

Surname DoB Birth

1st Gen 2nd Gen 3rd Gen 4th Gen 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

Thompson William 1805 Ireland LCL

Bridget 1811 Ireland LCL

Thompson Susan 1831 Ireland LCL

Thompson Thomas 1832 Manchester LCL

Thompson Joseph 1840 York LCL

Thompson John/Charles 1842 York 13 DoYP 13 DoYP

Martha 1843 York 13 DoYP 13 DoYP

Thompson Margaret 1868 York 13 DoYP 13 DoYP

Thompson John 1871 York 13 DoYP 13 DoYP

Thompson Arthur 1873 York 13 DoYP

Jewitt Martha 1811 Northumberland 13 DoYP

Jewitt John 1863 York 13 DoYP

Thompson Mary 1808 York 13 DoYP

Thompson James 1850 York 37 DoYP 37 DoYP

Annie 1852 Stockton on Forrest 37 DoYP 37 DoYP

Thompson William 1874 York 37 DoYP 37 DoYP

Thompson Albert 1876 York 37 DoYP

Thompson Fred 1877 York 37 DoYP 37 DoYP

Thompson Charlie 1879 York 37 DoYP 43 DoYP

Wife Florence 1881 York 43 DoYP

Thompson Jenny 1880 York 37 DoYP 37 DoYP

Thompson Elizabeth 1882 York 37 DoYP

Thompson Edith 1892 York 37 DoYP

Thompson Jim 1894 York 37 DoYP

Thompson Emily 1895 York 37 DoYP

Thompson Florence 1900 York 37 DoYP

Thompson Annie 1875 York St Georges 37 DoYP

Thompson James 1896 York St Georges 37 DoYP

Thompson John 1878 Lincs Gainsbrough 1 LCL

Thompson Elizabeth 1882 York 1 LCL

Forename Census

262

Smith Family of Hope Street

Surname DoB Birth

1st Gen 2nd Gen 3rd Gen 1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

Smith John 1801 Halifax HS 20 HS HS

Ann 1801 Huby HS 20 HS HS

Smith Jabez 1829 York HS 20 HS

Smith Mary 1831 York HS 20 HS HS

Smith George 1835 York 20 HS

Smith James 1806 York 14 HS HS 42 HS

Smith Grace 1834 York 14 HS HS 42 HS

Husband George 1839 York 42 HS

James 1870 York 42 HS

Smith James 1836 York 14 HS

Smith John 1838 York 14 HS HS

Smith Anthony 1812 Oulston Yorks 89 HS 11 HS

Wife Elizabeth 1808 York 89 HS 11 HS

Smith Mark A 1843 York 89 HS

Smith Thomas 1845 York 89 HS 11 HS

Smith Susan 1849 Nocton Lincs 11 HS


Mary Ann 1841 York 63 HS


Smith Grace 1860 York 63 HS

Smith Robert 1852 Hull 31 HS

Eliza 1846 Norton Yorks 31 HS

Smith Thomas 1878 York 31 HS

Smith Kate 1880 York 31 HS

Smith John 1853 York 36 HS Yard

Sarah 1861 York 36 HS Yard

Smith George 1864 Heslington York 64 HS

Annie 1863 York 64 HS

Smith Michael 1890 York 64 HS

Smith Mary 1842 Heslington York 1 HS

Smith Sarah 1860 York 2 Bellerby's Yard HS

Smith Fenwick 1876 Filey 41 HS

Smith Rebecca 1881 Langtoft 41 HS

Smith Robert 1841 Bolton Lancs 42 HS

Charlotte 1843 York 42 HS

Forename Census

263

Brown Family of Hope Street

Surname DoB Birth

1st Gen 2nd Gen 3rd Gen 1841 1851 1861 1871 1881

Brown William York 1821 Baynton Row 19 HS

Henrietta York 1821 Baynton Row 19 HS

Brown Jane Margaret York 1847 19 HS

Brown Sarah Yorkshire 1791 HS

Brown Jane Yorkshire 1831 HS

Brown Matthew York 1791 HS 8 HS

Mary Yorkshire 1791 HS 8 HS

Brown Matthew York 1826 HS HS HS 8 HS 8 HS

Wife Elizabeth Knaresbro 1821 HS

2nd wife Mary Ireland Mayo 1841 HS 8 HS 8 HS

Brown John York 1845 HS HS

Brown James York 1847 HS HS

Brown Matthew York 1848 HS HS 8 HS

Brown George York 1850 HS HS 8 HS

Brown Maria York 1853 HS 8 HS

Brown Elizabeth York 1858 HS

Brown William York 1862 8 HS 8 HS

Brown Emma York 1864 8 HS 8 HS

Robinson Maria Knaresbro 1790 HS

Robinson George Knaresbro 1830 HS

Brown Thomas York 1826 HS 8 HS

Brown Charles Yorkshire 1832 HS

Brown Matthew Yorkshire 1776 HS

Brown John York 1817 HS

Wife Elizabeth York 1822 HS

Brown Grace Leeds 1839 HS

Brown Charles York 1843 HS

Brown John Joshua York 1848 HS

Brown Maria York 1851 HS

Brown Thomas York 1832 70 HS

Hannah Ireland 1826 70 HS

Brown Harriet York 1856 70 HS

Brown Mary York 1859 70 HS

Brown John York 1838 70 HS

Brown William York 1836 58 HS

Sarah York 1835 58 HS

Brown Sarah Jane York 1857 58 HS

Brown Hannah York 1859 58 HS

Forename

264

Thompson Family of Hope Street

Surname DoB Birth

1st Gen 2nd Gen 3rd Gen 1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

Thompson Joseph 1806 York HS 20 HS

Hannah 1811 York HS 20 HS

Thompson Elizabeth 1826 York 20 HS

Thompson Mary 1827 Yorkshire HS

Thompson Lewis 1829 Yorkshire HS 20 HS

Thompson Margaret 1831 Yorkshire HS 20 HS

Thompson Joseph 1835 York 20 HS

Thompson Ann 1838 Yorkshire HS 20 HS

Thompson William 1842 York 20 HS

Thompson Elizabeth 1793 York 20 HS

Thompson Lewis 1781 Yorkshire HS

Elizabeth 1761 ?Scotland HS

Thompson Elizabeth 1801 Yorkshire HS

Thompson Richard 1801 York HS 7 HS

Ann 1797 York HS 7 HS

Thompson William 1826 Yorkshire HS

Thompson Richard 1828 Yorkshire HS

Thompson Sarah 1830 Yorkshire HS

Thompson Eliza 1832 York HS 7 HS

Curtis Sarah Ann 1850 Nottingham 7 HS

Thompson Ann 1834 York HS

Morgan Husband Edward 1831 York 7 HS

Morgan Mary Ann 1851 York 7 HS

Thompson George 1771 Helperby HS 38 HS

Ann 1781 York HS 38 HS

Thompson Ann 1811 York HS 38 HS

Thompson Ellen 1821 York 38 HS

Thompson Elizabeth 1766 Yorkshire HS

Thompson Hannah 1791 Yorkshire HS

Thompson John 1821 Howden 18 HS

Eliza 1826 York 18 HS

Thompson Ann 1849 York 18 HS

Thompson Mary 1850 York 18 HS

Thompson Jane 1811 York 7 HS Flats

Thompson Albert 1876 York 77 HS

Annie 1875 York 77 HS

Thompson Florence 1896 York 77 HS

Thompson Albert 1897 York 77 HS

Thompson Charles 1900 York 77 HS

Thompson Annie 1899 York 77 HS

Forename Census

265

Ryan Family of Hope Street

Surname DoB Birth

1st Gen 2nd Gen 3rd Gen 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

Ryan Patrick 1826 Ireland 80 HS

Catherine 1833 Ireland 80 HS

Ryan Matthew 1809 Mayo HS

Mary 1811 Bellacastle HS

Ryan Mary 1833 Bellacastle HS

Mary Paddin 1858 York HS

Ryan Catherine 1846 Bellacastle HS

Ryan Sarah 1808 York 5 Baynton Row

Ryan Sarah 1838 York 5 Baynton Row

Ryan Benjamin 1843 York 5 Baynton Row

Ryan Anne 1845 York 5 Baynton Row

Ryan James 1848 York 5 Baynton Row

Ryan William 1861 York 5 Baynton Row

Ryan Peter 1811 Ireland 49 HS

Sabina 1813 Ireland 49 HS

Ryan Peter 1841 Ireland 49 HS

Ryan Patrick 1841 Ireland 62 HS 60 HS 6 Yard, HS 6 HS

Annie 1845 Ireland 62 HS 60 HS 6 Yard, HS 6 HS

Ryan James 1864 York 62 HS 60 HS 6 Yard, HS

Ryan Thomas 1866 York 62 HS 60 HS

Ryan Peter 1868 York 62 HS 60 HS 6 Yard, HS 6 HS

Ryan Edward 1869 York 62 HS 60 HS

Ryan William 1877 York 60 HS 6 Yard, HS 6 HS

Ryan Annie 1878 York 60 HS 6 Yard, HS 6 HS

Ryan Patrick 1880 York 60 HS 6 Yard, HS 6 HS

Ryan Mary A 1882 York 6 Yard, HS

Ryan Peter (Father) 1807 Ireland 62 HS

Ryan Benjamin 1843 York 42 HS

Mary Ann 1846 York 42 HS

Ryan Cecilia 1868 York 42 HS

Ryan Ellen 1870 York 42 HS

Ryan Fanny 1873 York 42 HS

Ryan Ben 1876 York 42 HS

Ryan George A 1880 York 42 HS

Fletcher Elizabeth 1811 Skelton Yorks 42 HS

Forename Census

266

Appendix 11

Swaledale Household Heads 1841 to 1901: Increased and decreased households with shared surname

The Appendix lists all those families whose heads of household decreased in number by 10 or more, and increased in number by 2 or more, between the censuses of 1841 and

1901.

Total Heads 1841 Total Heads 1851 Total Heads 1861 Total Heads 1871 Total Heads 1881 Total Heads 1891 Total Heads 1901 Change 1841 to 1901

Alderson 80 82 75 65 69 49 45 -35

Harker 49 53 43 36 29 22 20 -29

Metcalfe 45 45 42 43 38 31 20 -25

Peacock 48 46 40 44 47 31 26 -22

Raw 32 31 32 24 20 10 10 -22

Coates 36 34 32 27 26 23 19 -17

Pratt 20 20 24 20 13 8 3 -17

Bell 24 20 18 22 19 13 8 -16

Hird 29 30 25 18 22 16 17 -12

Robinson 16 13 14 18 16 8 4 -12

Pedley 20 19 16 17 12 9 9 -11

Simpson 13 9 11 7 4 3 2 -11

Spensley 16 15 14 11 9 7 5 -11

March 11 6 7 5 2 1 1 -10

Siddle 12 13 9 8 6 3 2 -10

White 16 16 14 12 10 9 6 -10

Rutter 5 7 7 7 10 13 9 4

Scott 7 9 10 8 10 8 11 4

Binks 1 0 1 1 2 3 4 3

Percival 0 1 1 2 2 4 3 3

Reynoldson 4 3 4 5 5 4 7 3

Wallis 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 3

Appleton 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2

Dougill 0 1 2 2 3 2 2 2

Highmoor 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2

Parrington 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 2

Thornborrow 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2

267

Appendix 12: Alderson Family Plot [1]

Appendices 12,13 and 14 show the forenames of all those Aldersons, Harkers and Metcalfes who were listed as

heads of household in the censuses of 1841 to 1901 in Upper Swaledale. The heads are enumerated in the left

column, and are listed across the rows as parent (1st generation), children (2nd generation), grandchildren (3rd

generation), date of birth (DoB), place of birth where known (PoB), and district of residence and occupation in

each census. The heads are colour coded as farmer &/or landowner (green), lead miner (blue), lead miner &

farmer (red), and others (blank). Shaded boxes indicate dates when the individual did not appear as a head of

household in the census.

1st Generation 2nd Gen 3rd Gen 4th Gen DoB PoB 1841 1841 1851 1851

1 Bartholemew 1763 Reeth Reeth Pauper formerly stonemason

2 Wife Nancy 1787 Healaugh

3 Margaret 1769 Muker Own means

4 Christiana 1771 Arkindale Reeth Reeth Pauper

5 Thomas 1771 Harkerside Reeth Butcher Reeth Retired butcher

6 John 1774 Muker Own means

7 Mary 1774 Grinton Reeth Farmer

8 Henry 1807 Grinton

9 John Henry 1845 Grinton

10 James 1846 Grinton

11 John 1775 Muker Muker Farmer Muker Landowner

12 William 1775 Harkers Birkdale Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

13 James 1778 Birkdale Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

14 Charles 1812 Crackpot Hall

15 Bessy 1776 Muker Own means

16 Edmund 1776 Melbecks Lead miner

17 Joseph 1776 Arkengarthdale Lead mine agent

18 John 1776 Angram Reeth Lead miner

19 John 1819 Grinton Reeth Lead miner

20 Wife Mary 1821 Reeth

21 Mary 1778 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Pauper

22 Christopher 1781 Birkdale Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

23 George 1817 Wmland Mallerstang



26 John 1785 Wmland Brough Muker Lead miner Muker Labourer

27 James 1821 Birkdale Hilltop

28 Christopher 1860 Muker

29 Christopher 1822 Birkdale Hilltop


31 George 1781 Arkengarthdale Lead miner

32 Ann 1781 Reeth Labourer

33 Mary 1783 Arkengarthdale Reeth Retired Arkengarthdale Retired

34 Kitty 1784 Reeth Reeth Own means Reeth Annuitant

35 George 1821 Stonesdale

36 John Bland 1860 Wmland Winton

37 Charles 1869 Muker

38 Sarah 1785 Wmland Ravenstonedale

39 George 1786 Muker Farmer

40 Dinah 1790 Muker Muker Own means Muker Knitter

41 Thomas 1828 Melbecks

42 Wife Mary 1831 Melbecks

43 James 1855 Melbecks

44 Wife Ann 1858 Reeth

45 Thomas 1860 Melbecks

46 Isabella 1786 Muker Farmer

47 James 1792 Muker Muker Lead miner Muker Lead miner

48 Miles 1831 Hartlakes Muker

49 John 1786 Muker Farmer

50 Richard 1792 Satron Muker Lead miner Muker Farmer

51 Elizabeth 1786 Melbecks Own means

52 George 1786 Melbecks Lead miner

53 Wife Margaret 1787 Melbecks Melbecks Farmer

54 Rodger 1786 Arkengarthdale Farmer

55 John 1786 Arkengarthdale Lead miner

56 Thomas 1787 Reeth Farmer

57 George 1819 Healaugh Reeth Lead miner

58 Thomas 1789 Reeth Reeth Farmer

59 John 1794 Muker Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

60 Anthony 1799 Muker Muker Farmer Muker Landowner & Farmer

61 William 1791 Muker Lead miner

62 John 1791 Reeth Lead miner

268

Alderson Family Plot [2]


63 David 1791 Wmland Brough

64 Thomas 1841 Fremington

65 Esther 1831 Reeth

66 John 1802 Muker Melbecks Gamekeeper

67 William 1842 Muker

68 Thomas 1846 Muker

69 George 1803 Muker Muker Farmer Muker Landowner & Farmer

70 Thomas 1805 Keld Muker Innkeeper Muker Innkeeper, Farmer & Lead Miner

71 Wife Mary 1815 Westm Landford

72 William 1808 Angram Muker Lead miner Muker Lead miner

73 Wife Mary 1808 Westm Ravenstonedale

74 Richard 1794 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Farmer

75 Richard 1825 Arkengarthdale Reeth Farmer

76 George 1841 Arkengarthdale

77 Christopher 1875 Fremington

78 William 1794 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Lead miner Arkengarthdale Farmer

79 Wife Mary 1797 Hawes

80 Thomas 1829 Arkengarthdale

81 Wife Barbara 1843 Arkengarthdale

82 William 1831 Arkengarthdale

83 Jonathan 1838 Arkendale

84 Ann 1795 Riddings Reeth Farmer's widow

85 Edward 1829 Reeth


87 Joseph 1796 Melbecks Lead miner

88 John 1826 Ivelet Melbecks Lead miner

89 Christopher 1830 Ivelet

90 Henry 1796 Arkengarthdale Labourer

91 Wife Margaret 1795 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Housekeeper

92 George 1796 Arkengarthdale Lead miner

93 James 1796 Arkengarthdale Farmer

94 Jonathan 1796 Arkengarthdale Joiner

95 Thomas 1824 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Carpenter

96 John R 1851 Arkengarthdale

97 Joseph 1861 Arkengarthdale

98 Jonathan 1796 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Lead mine agent Arkengarthdale Lead mine agent

99 Ann 1796 Reeth Lead miner's widow

100 Jonathan 1797 Arkendale Reeth Lead miner

101 George 1797 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Lead mine agent Arkengarthdale Lead mine agent

102 Wife Hannah 1784 Cumb Alston Muker Own means

103 Mary 1798 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Farmer

104 Edward 1798 Thwaite

105 Edward 1842 Hawes

106 Thomas 1799 Muker Labourer

107 Margaret 1799 Muker Reeth Lead miner's widow

108 Thomas 1824 Smarber

109 Charles 1809 Wmland Hellgill Muker Lead miner Muker Lead miner & Farmer

110 Wife Elizabeth 1818 Muker

111 Thomas 1800 Muker Lead miner

112 Edward 1810 Angram Muker Own means Muker Farmer

113 Margaret 1800 Grinton

114 David 1801 Wmland Eubank Reeth Carrier Reeth Farmer


116 Wife Mary Ann 1811 Muker Muker Lead miner's widow

117 Miles 1836 Heugh Satron

118 Wife Margaret 1836 Rash

119 Henry 1859 Muker

120 Joseph 1866 Rash

121 William 1801 Arkengarthdale Lead miner

122 Richard 1801 Arkengarthdale Farmer

123 Isaac 1801 Arkengarthdale Arkengarthdale Lead miner Arkengarthdale Lead miner

124 William 1838 Arkengarthdale

269



125 John 1801 Doncaster Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer

126 John 1831 Bowes

127 Christopher 1842 Cringley

128 Joseph 1843 Cringley

129 Wife Ruth 1839 Bowes

130 John 1812 Wmland Hellgill Muker Labourer Muker Farmer

131 John 1843 Muker


133 George 1851 Muker

134 Joseph 1802 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Lead miner Arkengarthdale Lead miner

135 James 1834 Arkengarthdale

136 Sarah 1803 Booze Reeth Farmer

137 Simon 1813 Keld Muker Lead miner Muker Engine tenter & Farmer

138 Wife Elizabeth 1814 Wmland Mallerstang

139 Ralph 1840 Muker

140 James 1848 Muker


142 Christopher 1841 Keld

143 John 1854 Muker

144 Elizabeth 1805 Muker Farmer

145 George 1805 Keld Reeth Gamekeeper Reeth Gamekeeper

146 William 1805 Richmond Reeth Tailor Reeth Tailor

147 Joseph 1806 Arkengarthdale Lead miner

148 Job 1806 Arkengarthdale Miller

149 Wife Elizabeth 1808 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Miller

150 Job 1845 Arkendale

151 John 1806 Reeth Workhouse master

152 Christopher 1806 Grinton Reeth Carrier

153 John 1841 Reeth

154 Wife Ann 1844 Reeth


156 John 1815 Keld Muker Landowner & Farmer

157 John 1841 Angram

158 James 1873 Muker

159 John 1875 Muker

160 Christopher 1808 Arkengarthdale Arkengarthdale Lead miner Arkengarthdale Lead miner

161 Emmerson 1838 Arkendale

162 Elizabeth 1808 Arkengarthdale

163 John 1836 Arkengarthdale

164 John 1817 Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner

165 Edward 1810 Muker Coal miner

166 George 1819 Birkdale Muker Farmer

167 Wife Ann 1808 Keld

168 Richard 1848 Muker Greens

169 George 1843 Muker

170 James 1811 Muker Labourer

171 Simon 1811 Muker Farmer

172 Simon 1811 Arkengarthdale Lead miner

173 James 1811 Healaugh Reeth Butcher Reeth Butcher & Farmer

174 Nathan 1842 Healaugh


176 John 1836 Reeth

177 John 1811 Reeth Lead miner

178 John 1811 Reeth Labourer

179 James 1811 Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner

180 Isaiah 1845 Melbecks

181 George 1850 Melbecks

182 John 1852 Melbecks


184 William 1857 Melbecks

185 Thomas 1811 Grinton Reeth Farmer & Labourer

186 Wife Mary 1819 Grinton

270



187 William 1840 Grinton

188 Mary 1811 Arkengarthdale Arkengarthdale Lead miner

189 John 1811 Reeth Reeth Lead miner

190 Thomas 1820 Thorns Muker Coal miner & Farmer

191 Alice 1820 Birkdale Muker Farmer

192 Richard 1824 Muker Muker Lead miner & Farmer

193 William 1824 Wmland Stainmore Muker Coal miner

194 John 1815 Arkindale Reeth Lead miner Reeth Lead miner

195 Christopher 1815 Grinton

196 Henry 1843 Grinton

197 Jane 1816 Muker Grocer


199 Christopher 1816 Arkengarthdale Lead miner


201 Thomas 1825 Muker Muker Lead miner

202 Wife Ann 1823 Muker

203 William 1835 Wmland Brough


205 Joseph 1875 Muker

206 Richard 1837 Wmland Brough or Muker

207 James 1817 Arkengarthdale Arkengarthdale Lead miner

208 John 1818 Gunnerside

209 George 1845

210 John 1819 Reeth Reeth Sawyer

211 George 1826 Keld Muker Landowner & Farmer

212 John 1853 Skeughead

213 Jonathan 1820 Arkengarthdale


215 Joseph 1821 Ivelet Melbecks Lead miner

216 Wife Alice 1824 Melbecks



219 Christopher 1821 Grinton

220 Wife Mary 1814 Reeth

221 Ralph 1822 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Lead miner

222 James 1823 Ivelet Arkengarthdale Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner

223 John 1823 Arkendale Reeth Lead miner

224 William 1824 Lodge Green Melbecks Cordwainer

225 George 1854 Melbecks

226 Elizabeth 1826 Muker Muker Farmer's wife

227 Michael 1825 Coniston Reeth Lead miner

228 Wife Margaret 1827 Reeth

229 Thomas 1827 Muker Muker Lead miner

230 George 1827 Muker Muker Lead miner

231 Alexander 1855 Kisdon


233 Jane 1828 Reeth

234 William 1829 Thwaite Muker Innkeeper & Farmer

235 James 1830 Thwaite

236 Elizabeth 1833 Arkengarthdale

237 Joseph 1836 Melbecks

238 George 1836 Durham Chapel Row

239 Emanuel 1824 Manchester

240 Ann 1821 Reeth

241 Henry 1817 Muker Close Hills

242 Wife Hannah 1817 Muker Close Hills

243 Robert 1825 Reeth

244 Rachel 1852 Muker

245 James 1850 Starforth Barningham

246 David 1810 Bowes

247 James 1849 Reeth

248 Richard 1841 Muker

271


1861 1861 1871 1871 1881 1881 1891 1891 1901 1901

1

2 Reeth Pauper

3

4

5

6

7

8 Reeth Carrier & Farmer Reeth Carrier & Farmer

9 Reeth Farmer Reeth Retired farmer Reeth Carrier

10 Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer Muker Farmer

11

12

13

14 Muker Landowner & Farmer Muker Landowner & Farmer

15

16

17

18 Reeth Retired lead miner

19

20 Reeth Lead miner's widow

21

22

23 Muker Farmer Muker Landowner & Farmer

24

25 Reeth Lead miner Reeth Lead mine agent

26

27 Muker Farmer Muker Farmer Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

28 Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

29 Muker Farmer Muker Landowner & Farmer Muker Farmer


31

32

33

34

35 Muker Coal miner Muker Farmer

36 Muker Coal miner


38 Muker Stockings knitter

39

40 Muker Knitter

41 Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer

42 Reeth Farmer

43 Reeth Lead miner Reeth Stonemason

44 Reeth Lodging house keeper

45 Reeth Stonemason Reeth Stonemason

46

47

48 Muker Lead miner & Farmer

49

50 Muker Farmer

51

52

53

54

55

56

57 Reeth Lead miner Reeth Retired mine agent

58

59


61

62

272


1861 1861 1871 1871 1881 1881 1891 1891 1901 1901

63 Reeth Farmer

64 Reeth Lead miner Reeth Lead miner

65 Reeth Dressmaker Reeth Living on own means

66 Melbecks Gamekeeper Melbecks Farmer Melbecks Farmer

67 Melbecks Gamekeeper Melbecks Gamekeeper

68 Melbecks Gamekeeper Melbecks Gamekeeper & Farmer

69 Muker Landowner & Farmer Muker Retired landowner & farmer

70 Muker Innkeeper

71 Muker Landowner & Farmer Muker Retired innkeeper

72 Muker Farm labourer Reeth Lead miner

73 Muker Stockings knitter Muker Lead miner's widow

74 Arkengarthdale Farmer

75 Reeth Farmer

76 Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer

77 Reeth Farmer

78 Arkengarthdale Landowner

79 Arkengarthdale Landowner

80 Arkengarthdale Unemployed farmer

81 Arkengarthdale Living on own means

82 Arkengarthdale Lead miner Arkengarthdale Lead miner

83 Arkengarthdale Lead miner Reeth Lead miner

84

85 Reeth Lead miner

86

87

88 Melbecks Lead miner

89 Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner

90

91

92

93

94

95 Arkengarthdale Carpenter & Farmer Arkengarthdale Carpenter & Landowner Arkengarthdale Builder Cartwright & Farmer Arkengarthdale Joiner

96 Arkengarthdale Innkeeper & Farmer

97 Arkengarthdale Joiner & Farmer

98

99

100

101

102 Arkengarthdale Gentlewoman

103 Arkengarthdale Farmer Arkengarthdale Farmer

104 Muker Innkeeper & Landowner

105 Reeth Landowner, Farmer & Innkeeper Reeth Innkeeper & Farmer

106

107

108 Reeth Lead miner & Farmer

109 Muker Lead miner & Farmer Muker Farmer

110 Muker Farmer Muker Living on own means

111

112

113 Reeth Labourer

114

115

116

117 Muker Labourer

118 Muker Farmer Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

119 Muker Farmer

120 Reeth Carrier

121

122

123 Arkengarthdale Lead miner & Farmer

124 Arkengarthdale Lead miner

273


1861 1861 1871 1871 1881 1881 1891 1891 1901 1901

125 Reeth Farmer

126 Arkengarthdale Farmer Arkengarthdale Farmer Arkengarthdale Farmer

127 Reeth Farmer

128 Reeth Draper & Farmer Arkengarthdale Lead ore washer

129 Reeth Living on own means



132 Muker Farmer


134 Reeth Lead miner


136

137 Muker Stonemason Muker Landowner & Farmer Muker Farmer

138 Muker Farmer

139 Muker Innkeeper & Farmer Muker Innkeeper & Farmer Muker Innkeeper & Farmer


141 Muker Farmer Muker Landowner & Farmer Muker Farmer



144

145 Reeth Gamekeeper & Farmer

146 Reeth Tailor Reeth Tailor Reeth Tailor

147

148

149

150 Arkengarthdale Corn dealer & Farmer

151

152


154 Arkengarthdale Dressmaker Arkengarthdale Dressmaker


156 Muker Landowner & Farmer Muker Farmer Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

157 Muker Farmer Muker Farmer Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

158 Muker Farmer

159 Muker Farmer

160 Reeth Lead miner Arkengarthdale Lead miner Reeth Lead miner

161 Reeth Lead mine agent Reeth Workhouse master

162 ArkengarthdaleFlour dealer, Carrier &

FarmerArkengarthdale Innkeeper

163 Arkengarthdale Flour dealer & Farmer Arkengarthdale Merchant & Farmer Muker Grocer & Tea dealer

164

165

166 Muker Farmer

167 Muker Farmer Muker Landowner & Farmer Muker Postmistress & Farmer

168 Muker Farmer

169 Muker Retired police officer

170

171

172

173 Reeth Butcher & Farmer Reeth Farmer

174 Reeth Farmer

175 Reeth Wood carrier Reeth Farm labourer Reeth Shepherd Reeth Shepherd

176 Reeth Lead miner & Farmer Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer

177

178

179 Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Farmer


181 Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Farmer


183 Melbecks Farmer

184 Melbecks Farmer Melbecks Farmer

185 Reeth Lead miner Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer

186 Reeth Farmer

274


1861 1861 1871 1871 1881 1881 1891 1891 1901 1901

187 Reeth Farmer



190

191

192

193

194

195 Reeth Farmer

196 Reeth Lead miner Reeth Coal miner

197

198

199


201 Muker Lead miner Muker Lead miner & Farmer

202 Muker Farmer Muker Stockings knitter


204 Muker Farmer

205 Muker Farmer

206 Muker Coal miner Muker Grocer & Clogger Muker Grocer


208 Reeth Farmer

209 Reeth Lead miner & Farmer Reeth Farmer Reeth Cattle dealer & Farmer

210

211 Muker Farmer Muker Landowner & Farmer Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

212 Muker Farm labourer Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

213 Reeth Shoemaker Reeth Cordwainer Reeth Shoemaker Reeth Shoemaker


215 Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner & Farmer

216 Melbecks Farmer Melbecks Grocer, Carrier & Farmer

217 Melbecks Carrier & Farmer

218 Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner & Farmer

219 Reeth Labourer

220 Reeth Pauper (annuitant)

221

222 Reeth Lead miner Reeth Lead miner & Farmer


224 Melbecks Cordwainer Melbecks Cordwainer & Farmer Melbecks Shoemaker & Farmer Melbecks Retired shoemaker & Farmer Melbecks Living on own means

225 Melbecks Shoemaker & Clogger Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Shoemaker & Bootmaker

226


228 Melbecks Farmer Melbecks Living on own means

229 Muker Lead miner

230 Muker Lead miner Muker Lead miner Muker Farmer

231 Arkengarthdale Shepherd & Farm labourer Melbecks Farmer Melbecks Farmer


233 Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer Reeth Living on own means

234

235 Muker Innkeeper

236 Arkengarthdale Retired nurse Arkengarthdale Shoemaker

237 Melbecks Carpenter


239 Melbecks Innkeeper & Saddler Melbecks Saddler & Innkeeper

240 Reeth Retired housekeeper Melbecks Living on own means

241 Muker Shepherd

242 Muker Stockings knitter

243 Muker Retired farmer

244 Melbecks Annuitant



247 Reeth Farmer's hand

248 Muker Living on own means Muker Shopkeeper & General dealer

275

Appendix 13: Harker Family Plot [1]

1st Generation 2nd Generation 3rd Generation DoB PoB 1841 1841 1851 1851 1861 1861

1 William 1771 Crackpot Muker Living on own means Muker Landowner & Farmer

2 Michel 1776 Thwaite Muker Pauper

3 John 1791 Yks Muker Lead miner

4 William 1791 Yks Muker Farmer

5 Wife Martha 1788 Arkindale Muker Annuitant

6 William 1819 Thwaite Muker Farmer Muker Carter & Farmer

7 Sarah 1791 Yks Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

8 David 1817 Muker Muker Innkeeper & Farmer Muker Lead miner

9 John 1841 Muker

10 David 1846 Muker


12 Solomon 1791 Yks Muker Lead miner

13 Sarah 1796 not Yks Muker Living on own means

14 Elizabeth 1828 Muker Muker Schoolteacher

15 James 1796 Yks Muker Farmer Muker Farm labourer

16 Mary 1802 Yks Muker Living on own means

17 William 1805 Thwaite Muker Lead miner Muker Lead miner & Farmer Muker Lead miner

18 Wife Catharine 1815 Muker


20 James 1813 Muker Muker Lead miner Muker Farmer Muker Lead miner & Farmer

21 Margaret 1840 Muker

22 James E 1814 Redmire Muker Blacksmith & Farmer Muker Blacksmith & Farmer

23 Hannah 1821 Thwaite Muker Stockings knitter

24 John 1826 Gunnerside Muker Innkeeper & Lead miner

25 Brother Ralph 1830 Gunnerside

26 James 1831 Arkindale Muker Colliery agent

27 John Nathan 1861 Muker

28 Joseph 1870 Muker

29 George W 1871 Muker

30 John 1817 Gunnerside

31 Wife Mary 1817 Cotterside

32 Ann 1781 Yks Melbecks Living on own means Melbecks Living on own means

33 Mary 1781 Yks Melbecks Living on own means

34 Margaret 1786 Muker Melbecks Living on own means Melbecks Living on own means

35 James 1786 Yks Melbecks Lead miner

36 Richard 1824 Yks Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner

37 Richard 1849 Low Row

38 Elizabeth (1 of 2) 1789 Yks Melbecks Living on own means

39 John 1822 Yks Lodge Green Melbecks Lead miner

40 Elizabeth (1 of 2) 1791 Yks Melbecks Living on own means Muker Farmer

41 Thomas 1825 Yks Satron Melbecks Lead miner

42 Elizabeth 1791 Cumb Workington Melbecks Hosier labourer Melbecks Stockings knitter Melbecks Yarn manufacturer

43 Jane 1792 Yks Melbecks Farmer

44 James 1799 not Yks Melbecks Hosier labourer

45 William 1801 Satron Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Retired lead miner

46 Thomas 1826 Yks Lodge Green Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner


48 Thomas 1857

49 James 1811 Smarber Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner & Farmer Melbecks Lead miner & Property owner

50 James 1844 Smarber

51 William 1811 Melbecks Melbecks Grocer Melbecks Corn dealer & Flour dealer Melbecks Corn dealer

52 George 1811 Yks Melbecks Carrier

53 John 1811 Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner

54 Robert 1851 Melbecks

55 John (1 of 2) 1813 Lodge Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Farmer

56 Simon 1813 Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner

57 Thomas 1816 Lodge Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner

58 Wm 1816 Yks Melbecks Lead miner

59 Elizabeth 1820 Yks Melbecks Melbecks Wife

60 John 1825 Yks Melbecks Melbecks Grocer Melbecks Grocer & Draper

61 William 1831 Yks Lodge Green Melbecks Lead miner

62 Wife Elizabeth 1833 Gunnerside

63 James 1849 Kearton

64 James 1776 Yks Arkengarthdale Lead miner

65 Ralph 1817 Arkengarthdale Arkengarthdale Lead miner

66 Thomas 1844 Arkengarthdale Arkengarthdale Lead miner



276

Harker Family Plot [2]

Page 2


69 Ann 1781 Yks Arkengarthdale Farmer

70 Dinah 1811 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Lead ore washer Arkengarthdale Retired lead ore washer

71 Hannah 1786 Yks Arkengarthdale Farmer

72 John 1811 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Lead miner

73 Joseph 1791 Yks Arkengarthdale Lead miner

74 Wife Ann 1791 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Lead miner's widow Arkengarthdale Lead miner's widow

75 Ambrose 1820 Arkengarthdale Arkengarthdale Lead miner



78 James 1791 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Butcher Arkengarthdale Butcher & Landowner Arkengarthdale Farmer

79 Ralph 1791 Yks Arkengarthdale Farmer

80 Mary 1791 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Living on own means Arkengarthdale Charwoman Arkengarthdale Lead miner's widow

81 Margaret 1791 Yks Arkengarthdale Living on own means

82 James 1830 Arkengarthdale Arkengarthdale Lead miner Arkengarthdale Lead miner


84 Jane 1796 Swaledale Arkengarthdale Living on own means Arkengarthdale Lead miner's widow

85 John 1796 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Lead miner

86 George 1806 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Lead miner Arkengarthdale Lead miner

87 Wife Ann 1807 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Lead miner's widow Arkengarthdale Farmer


89 Mary 1842 Swaledale

90 James 1806 Muker Arkengarthdale Lead miner Arkengarthdale Lead miner & Farmer Arkengarthdale Lead ore smelter

91 Ralph 1810 Yks Arkengarthdale Butcher & Clogger & Farmer

92 Timothy 1841 Durham Barnard Castle

93 Joseph 1811 Yks Arkengarthdale Farmer

94 Adam 1811 Thwaite Arkengarthdale Lead miner Arkengarthdale Lead miner Arkengarthdale Lead miner

95 Ralph 1816 Yks Arkengarthdale Lead ore smelter Arkengarthdale Lead miner Arkengarthdale Lead ore smelter

96 Wife Ann 1814 Arkengarthdale


98 Thomas 1849 Arkengarthdale

99 Ralph 1857 Arkengarthdale

100 George 1817 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Lead miner Arkengarthdale Lead miner Arkengarthdale Lead miner & Wesleyan local preacher

101 Wife Margaret 1821

102 Joseph 1818 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Lead miner Arkengarthdale Lead miner

103 Ralph 1821 Yks Arkengarthdale Lead miner

104 James 1821 Yks Arkengarthdale Lead miner & Farmer

105 Robert 1822 Yks Arkengarthdale Lead miner

106 John 1825 Yks Arkengarthdale Lead miner

107 George 1831 Durham West Pits Arkengarthdale Lead miner & Farmer

108 Deborah 1839 Arkengarthdale


110 Wife Isabella 1844 Arkengarthdale

111 James 1785 Yks Reeth Miner Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer

112 John 1825 Grinton Reeth Farmer

113 Jas 1852 Marrick

114 James 1801 Yks Reeth Farmer

115 James 1803 Yks Whitaside Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer

116 Wife Ann 1800 Grinton

117 Leonard 1811 Yks Reeth Living on own means

118 William 1816 Yks Reeth Preciptor

119 Ralph 1784 Yks Arkengarthdale Reeth Retired farmer

120 Esther 1785 Yks Melbeck Reeth Annuitant

121 Elizabeth 1788 Reeth Reeth Pauper

122 Nanney 1802 Yks Muker Reeth Farmer Reeth Landowner & Farmer

123 Simon 1834 Whiteside

124 John 1808 Smarber Reeth Farmer

125 Simon 1853 Grinton

126 Ambrose 1820 Yks Sturfit Hall Reeth Lead miner

127 Wife Margaret 1824 Arkindale Reeth Farmer

128 Joseph 1822 Yks Arkindale Reeth Lead miner

129 Joseph 1822 Yks Arkendale Reeth Farmer Arkengarthdale Farmer


131 Ambrose 1858 Arkengarthdale


277


1871 1871 1881 1881 1891 1891 1901 1901

1

2

3

4

5

6 Muker Carrier & Farmer

7

8 Muker Farmer Muker Farmer Muker Retired farmer

9 Muker Lead miner & Farmer Muker Farmer Muker Shepherd

10 Muker Lead miner Muker Living on own means

11 Muker Farmer

12

13

14

15

16

17


19 Muker Farmer

20

21 Muker Pauper

22 Muker Blacksmith, Landowner & Farmer Muker Blacksmith & Farmer

23

24

25 Muker Innkeeper Muker Innkeeper & Farmer Muker Innkeeper & Farmer

26 Muker Colliery agent & Farmer Muker Colliery agent & Farmer Muker Colliery agent & Farmer


28 Muker Coal miner & Farmer

29 Muker Colliery manager


31 Muker Living on own means

32

33

34

35



38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46 Melbecks Lead miner & Farmer Melbecks Lead miner & Farmer Muker Farmer

47 Melbecks Lead miner & Shepherd Melbecks Shepherd & Farmer Melbecks Shepherd & Farmer

48 Muker Farmer

49 Melbecks Retired miner Melbecks Farmer


51

52

53 Melbecks Lead miner & Farmer Melbecks Farmer

54 Muker Farmer

55

56

57

58

59

60 Melbecks Grocer & Draper Melbecks Retired grocer Melbecks Retired grocer

61 Melbecks Lead miner & Farmer Melbecks Lead miner & Farmer

62 Muker Housekeeper Muker Farmer


64

65

66


68 Arkengarthdale Lead ore smelter & Wesleyan local preacher

278


1871 1871 1881 1881 1891 1891 1901 1901

69

70 Arkengarthdale Pauper

71

72

73

74

75

76 Arkengarthdale Lead miner Arkengarthdale Lead ore smelter & Farmer

77 Arkengarthdale Lead miner & Farmer Arkengarthdale Farmer

78 Arkengarthdale Retired butcher

79

80

81


83 Arkengarthdale Lead miner Arkengarthdale Lead miner & Farmer


85

86


88 Arkengarthdale Lead miner & Farmer

89 Arkengarthdale Annuitant


91

92 Reeth Carpenter & Farmer

93


95

96 Arkengarthdale Grocer & Draper Arkengarthdale Shopkeeper & Farmer Arkengarthdale Living on own means Arkengarthdale Living on own means

97 Arkengarthdale Lead ore smelter & Wesleyan local preacher

98 Arkengarthdale Lead mine agent & Wesleyan local preacher Arkengarthdale Lead mine agent Arkengarthdale Mine agent

99 Arkengarthdale Grocer Arkengarthdale Grocer

100

101 Arkengarthdale Lead miner's widow Arkengarthdale Lead miner's widow Arkengarthdale Farmer


103

104 Reeth Farmer


106

107

108 Arkengarthdale Lead miner's widow Arkengarthdale Charwoman


110 Arkengarthdale Lead miner's widow Arkengarthdale Living on own means

111

112


114

115 Reeth Farmer

116 Reeth Annuitant

117

118

119

120

121

122

123 Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer Melbecks Farmer Melbecks Living on own means

124 Reeth Farmer


126

127

128



131 Reeth Labourer

132 Reeth Labourer

279

Appendix 14: Metcalfe Family Plot [1]


1 Martha 1769 Keld Muker Muker Pauper



4 L.W 1778 Muker Living on own means

5 Margaret 1804 Muker Muker Farmer

6 Thomas 1833 Muker Muker Coal miner

7 John 1778 Muker Lead miner

8 Wife Ann 1791 Hardraw Muker Knitter Muker Widow

9 John 1812 Grinton Reeth Cattle dealer


11 John 1845 Springend

12 Wife Helen 1842 Muker

13 Joseph 1848 Grinton

14 Henry 1817 Muker Muker Lead miner Muker Lead miner & Farmer

15 Wife Elizabeth 1822 Muker

16 William 1823 Muker Muker Lead miner Muker Engine tenter lead mine

17 Thomas 1781 Aysgarth Muker Lead miner Muker Farmer

18 Mary Ann 1816 Cotterside Muker Farmer

19 Mawson 1832 Hellgill Muker Lead miner


21 Thomas 1804 Muker Muker Lead miner & Farmer Muker Lead miner

22 Jane 1782 Muker Living on own means

23 George 1825 Muker Muker Lead miner

24 James 1827 Muker Muker Lead miner Muker Lead miner

25 Ann 1786 Muker Muker Living on own means Muker Farmer

26 John 1840 Calverts

27 George 1819 Ivelet Muker Lead miner & Farmer

28 James 1786 Muker Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

29 Thomas 1786 Muker Farmer

30 Thomas 1815 Muker Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

31 Mary 1796 Yorkshire Muker Living on own means Muker Farmer

32 Henry 1827 Angram Muker Lead miner Muker Coal miner & Farmer

33 Henry 1845 Muker

34 William 1847

35 Robert 1796 Hawes Muker Cordwainer Muker Shoemaker


37 Lister 1824 Yorkshire Melbecks Lead miner

38 John 1828 Muker Muker Coal miner

39 Mary Ann 1833 Melbecks

40 Edward 1842 Muker

41 Richard 1801 West Stonesdale Muker Coal miner Muker Coal miner & Farmer Muker Farmer

42 Leonard 1828 Muker

43 John 1830 Angram Muker Lead miner



46 Jane 1833 Muker

47 William 1834 Keld Muker Coal miner



50 Jemima 1855 Muker

51 Michael 1801 Keld Muker Lead miner Muker Lead miner

52 John 1801 Muker Lead miner

53 Margaret 1803 Muker Muker Living on own means Muker Annuitant

54 Thomas 1827 Hardraw Muker Lead miner Muker Lead miner

55 Wife Jane 1832 Muker


57 James 1859 Muker

58 Christopher 1864 Wmland Kirby

59 John 1868 Muker

60 William 1807 Yorkshire Muker Farmer

61 William 1808 Grinton Muker Stonemason Muker Stonemason & Farmer Muker Stonemason


63 Ralph 1818 Aysgarth Melbecks Lead miner

64 Anthony 1821 Hawes Muker Farm labourer

65 Christopher 1785 Melbecks Lead miner

66 Wife Mary 1783 Feetham Melbecks Farmer

67 Thomas 1822 Lodge Green Muker Lead miner

68 Leonard 1828 Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner

69 Robert 1788 Melbecks Lead miner

70 James 1791 Lodge Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Annuitant

280

Metcalfe Family Plot [2]


71 Jane 1791 Melbecks Melbecks Melbecks NS

72 Robert 1824 Satron

73 Wife Margaret 1820 Whins


75 John 1791 Melbecks Lead miner

76 Wife Elizabeth 1797 Melbecks Melbecks Farmer Muker Pauper

77 Robert 1822 Grinton Melbecks Lead miner & Farmer

78 Wife Jane 1827 Grinton

79 John 1824 Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner

80 Wife Margaret 1823 Melbecks

81 Adam 1806 Melbecks Farmer

82 Ralph 1807 Cotterdale Melbecks Lead miner

83 John 1807 Whitaside Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner

84 James 1811 Melbecks Lead miner

85 John 1811 Melbecks Lead miner

86 Merrel 1816 Melbecks Knitter

87 Thomas 1816 Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner

88 George 1827 Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner

89 George 1823 Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner

90 Wife Jane 1824 Melbecks



93 Jane 1771 Stainton Arkengarthdale Living on own means Arkengarthdale Pauper

94 Jane 1806 Yorkshire Arkengarthdale Housekeeper

95 Michael 1837 Yorkshire

96 Mary 1771 Arkengarthdale Living on own means

97 William 1806 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Lead miner Arkengarthdale Lead ore smelter

98 Henry 1836 Swaledale

99 Thomas 1769 Busk Reeth Pauper

100 Marmaduke 1813 Whitaside Reeth Game watcher & Shepherd

101 Mary 1840 Grinton

102 Elizabeth 1773 Reeth Living on own means

103 William 1776 Grinton Reeth Living on own means Reeth Landowner

104 George 1781 Reeth Farmer

105 Wife Isabella 1787 Gayle Reeth Living on own means

106 William 1786 Reeth Lead miner

107 Margaret 1791 Reeth Living on own means

108 William 1796 Reeth Saddler

109 Robert 1801 Fremington Reeth Miller Reeth Miller

110 Thomas 1801 Reeth Lead miner

111 Wife Margaret 1807 Muker Reeth Farmer

112 Thomas 1830 Sumer Reeth Farmer

113 James 1806 Crackpot Reeth Lead miner Reeth Lead miner

114 Wife Margaret 1806 Richmond Reeth Farmer

115 Thomas 1828 Healaugh Reeth Lead miner

116 Thomas 1840 Healaugh

117 William 1829 Healaugh Reeth Lead miner

118 Wife Mary Ann 1831 Whaugh

119 John 1835 Healaugh Reeth Lead miner

120 Wife Dinah 1841 Marrick


122 George 1806 Reeth Shoemaker

123 Thomas 1811 Crackpot Reeth Lead miner Reeth Lead miner

124 Wife Isabella 1813 Reeth

125 William 1813 Yorkshire

126 William 1815 Healaugh Reeth Lead miner Reeth Lead miner

127 Wife Mary 1816 Melbecks

128 Richard 1815 Hawes Reeth Hosier Melbecks Innkeeper & Labourer

129 Anthony 1816 Whitaside Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer

130 John 1816 Yks Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer

131 George 1817 Muker Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer

132 George 1850 Grinton

133 John 1852 Grinton

134 Edward 1855 Grinton

135 Thomas 1855 Grinton

136 George 1820 Healaugh Reeth Lead miner Reeth Grocer

137 William 1822 Hurst

138 Elizabeth 1826 Whiteside

139 John 1838 Durham

140 Thomas NK Healaugh

281


1871 1871 1881 1881 1891 1891 1901 1901

1

2

3

4

5 Muker Housekeeper

6 Muker Coal miner Muker Coal miner Muker Slate quarry labourer Muker Road labourer

7

8 Muker Widow Muker Housekeeper

9 Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer

10 Muker Living on own means Muker Living on own means

11 Reeth Cattle dealer & Farmer Reeth Cattle dealer & Farmer Reeth Cattle dealer & Farmer

12 Reeth Domestic servant

13 Reeth Farmer & Wesleyan local Reeth Farmer & Wesleyan local

14


16

17

18

19

20

21 Muker Yeoman

22

23

24

25

26 Muker Farmer Reeth Farmer

27

28

29

30 Muker Labourer & Farmer

31 Muker Annuitant

32

33 Muker Lead miner Muker Farmer

34 Muker Farmer

35

36

37

38

39 Melbecks Living on own means Melbecks Living on own means

40 Muker Coal miner Muker Coal miner


42 Muker Labourer Muker Coal miner Muker Coal miner

43 Muker Coal miner Muker Coal miner Muker Stonemason


45 Muker Coal miner

46 Muker Farmer

47 Muker Pitman & Farmer Muker Coal miner, Grocer & Farmer Muker Grocer & Farmer Muker Grocer & Farmer

48 Muker Labourer Muker Stonemason & Farmer Muker Stonemason Muker Stonemason

49 Muker Farmer

50 Muker Farmer

51

52

53

54 Muker Labourer Muker Labourer & Farmer

55 Muker Housekeeper

56 Muker Labourer Muker Farmer Muker Grocer & Carrier & Farmer

57 Muker Farmer

58 Muker Slate quarry labourer

59 Muker Labourer Muker Labourer

60

61 Muker Landowner & Farmer Muker Retired Stonemason

62

63

64 Muker Labourer Muker Farmer

65

66

67

68 Melbecks Lead miner & Farmer Melbecks Farmer Melbecks Farmer Melbecks Farmer

69

70

282


1871 1871 1881 1881 1891 1891 1901 1901

71

72 Muker Lead miner

73 Melbecks Widow Melbecks Living on own means

74 Muker Farmer

75

76


78 Melbecks Farmer

79 Melbecks Farmer

80 Melbecks Annuitant

81

82

83 Melbecks Lead miner & Farmer

84

85

86

87

88

89

90 Melbecks Landowner


92 Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner

93

94 Arkengarthdale Retired


96

97

98 Arkengarthdale Coal miner

99

100 Reeth Game watcher Reeth Game watcher

101 Reeth Shepherd Reeth Farm labourer

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112 Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer

113

114

115


117

118 Reeth Widow



121 Reeth Joiner

122

123 Reeth Lead miner & Farmer

124 Reeth Farmer Reeth Living on own means

125 Reeth Shoemaker




129 Reeth Farmer

130

131 Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer Melbecks Retired

132 Melbecks Lead miner Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer

133 Melbecks Lead miner & Drainer



136 Reeth Butcher & Farmer Reeth Butcher & Grocer Reeth Grocer & Farrier

137 Reeth Lead miner Reeth Engine tenter Reeth Living on own means

138 Reeth Dairy maid Reeth Farmer

139 Reeth Farmer

140 Reeth Farmer

283

Appendix 15

Occupations of Household Heads of Five Kinship Families in Swaledale

Districts

Muker

284


Districts

Melbecks

285


Districts

Arkengarthdale

286


Districts

Reeth

287

Appendix 16

Household Heads and Persistent Surnames of Holgate Road [1]

1 Fothergill Labourer Bean Gardener Appleby Nurseryman Prince Newsvendor

2 Scott - 1 M.S. Thompson - 13 Annuitant Cockerill Cab driver Richardson -19

3 Schofield Cordwainer Barker - 11 Proprietor of Houses Milner - 29 Landed proprietor Hields

4

5 Jackson - 2 M.S. Bell Straw bonnett maker Forest Bailiff County Court Montgomery - 10 Painter

6

7 Mawson - 3 Laundress Montgomery - 10 Seamstress Waddington - 30 Coachman

8 Mawson - 3 Independent Scott - 1 Butcher Blanshard Retired farmer Humpherson Tinner & Brazier

9 Beck Carter Lomas - 8 Annuitant Halley - 31 Landed proprietor Nicholls Joiner

10 Gawthorp Independent Toes - 7 Shoemaker Spink Commission agent Sigsworth Painter

11 Nicholson - 4 Farmer Douglas Comb maker journeyman Harris - 32 Baker Sanderson Railway goods guard

12 Cooper Bankers Clerk Atkinson - 12 Waiter at an Inn Dennison Butcher Tinkler - 37 Provision dealer

13 Evans Collector of Excise Green Comb maker journeyman Conn - 33 Blacksmith Reid Shoemaker

14 Wilkinson Professor of music Rhodes - 15 Saddler Harrison - 18 Shaw Messenger living in

15 Todd - 5 Independent Sharpe Annuitant Harrison - 18 Bricklayer Nalton

16 Parkinson - 6 Solicitor Nalton Fundholder Somerset - 34 Cordwainer Woollous Retired butcher

17 Cawood Independent Wheatley - 16 Lodging house keeper Gray - 23 Provision dealer Broomhead Dressmaker

18 Park Cowkeeper Whitehead - 17 Engine fitter Lion - 35 Laundress Duff - 45 Gardener

19 Toes - 7 Cordwainer Butler Fund holder Coates Joy Pianoforte tuner

20 Lomas - 8 Widow Burnett Landed proprietor Seymour Gardener Cowan Assistant overseer

21 Powell - 9 Wheelwright Mawson - 3 Stone mason Nicholson - 4 Former cow keeper Creser - 46 Painter

22 Fletcher M.S. Snowden Plumber & Glazier Jackson - 2 Laundress Brown Civil engineer

23 Montgomery - 10 Widow Sawyer Fund holder Walker - 36 Cab proprietor Widowson - 28 Clerk Inland Revenue

24 Barker - 11 Cowkeeper Banks Coach body maker Wilkie Mechanical engineer Lawson - 25 Bookseller

25 Atkinson - 12 Grocer Harrison - 18 Bricklayer employing 6 man Richardson - 19 Cow keeper Powell - 9 Carpenter

26 Thompson - 13 Independent Powell - 9 Carpenter employing 2 aps Longbones Cab proprietor Ball Iron turner

27 Phillips Smith Richardson - 19 Stonemason's wife Nutbrown Shoe maker Shuttleworth Draper's shopman

28 Cordukes Independent Jenkins Rail shareholder Thompson - 13 Milliner Hodgson None

29 Nettleton - 14 Independent Hemwood Annuitant Montgomery - 10 Gray - 23 Master joiner

30 Knowles Independent Hird Annuitant Rhodes -15 Head waiter* Warner - 38 Officer's widow

31 Mawson - 3 Stone Mason Haggard Annuitant Scott - 1 Powell - 9 Engine fitter

32

33 Varley Labourer Barker - 11 Proprietor of houses Arthington Blacksmith Oliver - 21 Lodging house keeper

34 Daniel St Catharines Hospital Jackson - 2 Tobacconist firm of 2 employees Toes - 7 Shoemaker Carrington Colliery agent

35 Staines St Catharines Hospital Cobb - 20 MB not practising Lambert Laundress Robson - 47 Inn Keeper (Crystal Palace)

36 Holgate St Catharines Hospital Oliver - 21 Lieutenant Army Atkinson - 12 Servant Stackhouse Annuitant

37 Morran Ag Lab Bayley Captain Royal Engineers Tinkler - 37 Confectioner Christison Railway superintendent

38 Busby Labourer Robson Lodging house keeper English Boiler maker Chadwick Land owner & Coal merchant

39 Hodgson Landed proprietor Reed Bootmaker Matthews - 48 Schoolmaster

40 Dickinson - 22 Watch maker Cabrey Sherriff of City of York (C. Engineer) Ecroyd Boarder of House for School

41 Gray - 23 Secretary to the Rail Company Salson* Fund holder Porter Huntsman's widow

42 Moore Portrait painter Wheatley - 16 Farmer's W Parsons - 41 No occupation

43 Varey Merchant Whitehead - 17 Proprietor of Houses Cookson - 49 Chief clerk insurance company

44 Coultas - 24 Proprietor of houses Rush* Milliner & Dressmaker Tiplady - 39 Retired farmer

45 Racliffe Landed proprietor Moyser Woolen draper Lawson - 25 Retired builder

46 Rhodes - 15 Schoolmistress McMorran Bookeeper & Traveller to nursery & seedsmen Todd Property & Lodgers

47 Davidson Annuitant Thompson - 13 Proprietor Worthington Annuities

48 Lawson - 25 Joiner & Builder employing 3 men Warner - 38 Commission agent Fawdington - 50 Joiner out of business

49 Fryer Linen draper Stephenson None Welburn - 51 Independent

50 Day - 26 Linen draper Widdowson - 28 Inland Revenue Waddington - 30 Coachman Domestic servant

51 Day - 26 Linen draper Spenceley Lodging house keeper Halley - 31 Annuitant

52 Mills Wharfinger Powell - 9 Carpenter & Joiner Allan - 52 Courier employing 3 men & 3 boys

53 Whitehead - 17 Draper and silk mercer employing 5 men Richardson - 19 Stone mason Harris - 32 Baker

54 Waddy Wesleyan Minister Osborn Schoolmaster Webster - 53 Butcher

55 Taft Annuitant Cotham Annuitant Ness Income from funds

56 Barr Proprietor of houses Oliver - 21 Lodging house keeper Conn - 33 Contractor iron trade

57 Wilson Proprietor of houses Longridge Annuitant Harrison - 18 Joiner

58 Steward Comb manufacturer employing 18 men Dickinson - 22 Spirit merchant Harrison - 18 Bricklayer

59 Hodgson Clergyman's wife Bowness Clergyman Somerset - 34 Green grocer

60 Perkins Attorney Chief Clerk of County Court Christian Railway superintendant Gray - 23 Provision dealer

61 Collins Landed proprietor Carey* Ham factor* Corrigham Washerwoman

62 Smithson Solicitor Coultas - 24 Lodging house keeper Lyon - 35 Laundress

63 Wilks Landed proprietor Day - 26 Linen draper Swales - 54 Coal merchant

64 Groves Landed proprietor Box Commercial traveller Masterman Builder clerk of works

65 Peart Miller employing 11 men Sorbett* Liet Col Royal Engineerrs Slingsby Cork cutter

66 Spence - 27 Chemist & Druggist Buncombe Vicar of SMBJ Gowland Lodging house keeper

67 Widdowson - 28 Lodging Housekeeper Tiplady - 39 Retired farmer Fothergill Corn collator's assistant

68 Nettleton - 14 Landed proprietor & Annuitant Calvert Surgeon Henson Groom

69 Gill Gardener Journeyman Lawson - 25 Builder Smith - 40 Labourer

70 Parkinson - 6 Attorney & Solicitor Fawsitt Retired farmer Jackson - 2 Laundress

71 Todd - 5 Proprietor of houses Smith - 40 Fundholder Walker - 36 Cab proprietor

72 Milner - 29 Annuitant Bush Wesleyan Minister Mannell Labourer

73 Brown Cloth manufacturer & Draper Burtt Coal agent Richardson - 19 Cow keeper

74 Sheppard Annuitant Parsons - 41 Retired publican Betty

75 Watkins Overlooker of rail stores Maclean Customs officer Tennant Coal merchant

76 Jackson - 2 Annuitant Boddy Artist Daniel - 55 Annuitant

77 Bedford Teacher of mathematics Simpson Proprietor of houses Whiteside Weslyan Minister

78 Deighton Bricklayer journeyman Chapman - 42 Proprietor of houses Burt Coal agent

79 Fox Engine fitter Cartledge - 43 Wife of clergyman Ward Land owner

80 Nicholson - 4 Cow keeper Rogerson Landed proprietor Varley Coal agent

81 Jackson - 2 Huckster Fawcett Inspector of Taxes IR Kearsley Coal & Lime merchant

82 Mawson - 3 Laundress Cobb - 20 Lieut General Royal Artillery Chapman - 42 Surveyor

83 Holmes Comb maker journeyman Brady - 44 Proprietor of houses Forbes - 56

84 Richardson - 19 Shoemaker Cook Fundholder Summers Artist

85 McCallum Engine fitter Spence - 27 Glass manufacturer Guest Clerk in Holy Orders

86 Atkinson - 12 Annuitant Day - 26 Silk mercer

87 Groves - 57 No occupation

88 Brady - 44 Annuitant & from dividends

89 Widdowson - 28

90 Spence - 27 Retired glass manufacturer

91 Cartledge - 43 Rector of St Pauls

92 Wilson Goods manager NER

Gardener

Richardson - 19 Butcher

Butcher

Total IFs = 33 Total PSs = 29; Total IFs = 73 Total PSs = 38; Total IFs = 78 Total PSs = 39; Total IFs = 82

New PSs 45 to 57 = 13

New PSs 30 to 44 = 15 PSs 30 to 44 present > 10 years = 15

New PSs 15 to 29 = 15 PSs 15 to 29 present > 10 years = 15 PSs 15 to 29 present > 20 years = 8

New PSs 1 to 14 = 14 PSs 1 to 14 present > 10 years = 14 PSs 1 to 14 present > 20 years = 8 PSs 1 to 14 present > 30 years = 3

1841 Census 1851 Census 1861 Census 1871 Census

288


1 Stephenson - 58 Auditor NER Gebhard - 78 Pork butcher Hattee - 69 Newsagent

2 Trotter Gentlewoman Maddison* Labourer Trewsdale Umbrella maker

3 Fawdington - 50 Retired builder Wray Labourer Pickering - 72

4

5 Spens - 27 Gentlewoman Gladdis* Richardson - 19

6

7 Piercy - 59 Gentleman Holmes Laundress Armstrong Painter

8 McMorian Gentlewoman Hudson Living on own means Wright - 68 Cab driver

9 Stephenson - 58 Annuitant Beverley - 79 Railway track repairer Skerrell

10 Allan - 52 Currier master Hatloe* - 69 Telephone wireman Clarke - 71 Charwoman

11 Beavan Baker & Grocer Trowsdale Umbrella maker Douglass - 87 Sack repairer

12 Webster - 53 Butcher Hawkins - 61 Photographic artist Lamb Railway boiler smith

13 Duff - 45 Gardener Rhodes Dress maker Kettlewell Shoe maker

14 Conn - 33 Engineer's wife Richardson - 19 Butcher Copperthwaite - 65 Civil engineer retired

15 Lawton Engine fitter Hick Hair dresser Scott Plumber glazier gasfitter

16 Pottage - 60 Joiner Sanderson Brush maker Parkin Estate agent

17 Somerset - 34 Cordwainer Parkinson Labourer Rayson

18 Hawkin - 61 Dairyman & Grocer Smith - 40 Charring washing Butterfield Railway signalman

19 Pannett Annuitant Crear* Charring washing Dodds Manager Boot & shoe branch

20 Walker - 36 Beerhouse keeper Elliss - 63 Engine builder Dodsworth

21 Barber - 62 Lodginghouse keeper Reed - 64 Shoe maker Bonnard - 80 Joiner retired

22 Steigmann Pork butcher Cross Carriage builder Wheelwright Cooper Cordwaner

23 Spence - 27 Locomotive fireman Eccles Steam engine fitter Creser - 46 Schoolmistress

24 McFarland Lodginghouse keeper Wright - 68 Carriage painter Smith - 40 Railway carriage builder retired

25 Coulson Smith's labourer Copperthwaite - 65 Civil engineer Hanby Joiner Carpenter

26 Hatlee - 69 Telegraph Bonnard - 80 Joiner Remmer Railway joiner

27 Garnett Fitter L&M Krammar* * Wedgwood - 81 Blacksmith

28 Hawkins - 61 Fruiterer & Gardener Creser - 46 Schoolmistress Rowe Railway labourer

29 Montgomery - 10 Painter Smith - 40 Carriage builder Cartwright Living on own means

30 Richardson - 19 Butcher Harrison - 18 Head waiter Forbes - 56 Cabinet maker

31 Naldreth Timekeeper Rimmer Joiner Wilson Bank clerk

32

33 Berry Engine fireman Wedgwood - 81 Blacksmith Beckett - 82

34 Robinson Engineer Nicholson Milk seller Ruby Railway waggon builder

35 Askham Labourer Wright - 68 Lodging house keeper Pigdon - 83 Living on own means

36 Grear Chairwoman Pexton Stud groom Sim Inn keeper

37 Ellis - 63 Railway engine fitter & Provision dealer Forbes - 56 Cabinet maker Thompson Monumental mason

38 Reed - 64 Boot & shoe maker Beckett - 82 Living on own means Hessay Milliner

39 Copperthwaite - 65 Civil engineer Barber - 62 Lets appartments Sampson Living on own means

40 Robson - 47 Innkeeper Pigdon - 83 Retired grocer Daniel - 55 Living on own means

41 Varey Gentlewoman Topham Inn keeper Groves - 57 Violinist

42 Skelton Sculptor Stephenson - 58 Railway auditor McClellan Brewer's clerk

43 Matthews - 48 Private lodginghouse keeper Empson Grocer Broadley Living on own means

44 Daniel - 55 Gentlewoman Mosley - 67 Schoolmaster Hutton Shopkeeper

45 Groves - 57 Teacher of music Daniel - 55 Living on own means Lawson Railway Clerk

46 Parsons - 41 Professor of music & singing Groves - 57 Letting furnished appartments Mawson Surgeon

47 Robinson Gentlewoman Oxley Estate agent Harrison - 18 Grocer retired

48 Delaney Pensioner & Railway labourer Dawson Clerk Malyon Laundryman

49 Cookson - 49 Cashier for Life Insurance Co Harland Medd Boarding house keeper

50 Lowe - 66 Coal merchant to traveller Sullivan Clerk in Holy Orders Smith - 40 Land agents clerk

51 Welburn - 51 Gentlewoman Smith - 40 Gas dealer Piercy - 59 Living on own means

52 Winn* School mistress Spens - 27 Living on own means Wiseman - 84 Railway attendant at York station

53 Mosley - 67 School master Smith - 40 Land surveyor Stephenson - 58 Living on own means

54 Pawson Bookbinder Piercy - 59 Stordy Railway waggon inspector

55 Beale Army officer Wiseman - 84 Railway* Rose - 85 Baker & confectioner

56 Powell - 9 Joiner Stephenson - 58 Living on own means Webster - 53 Butcher

57 Skaife Antiquary Allan 52 Gebhard - 78 Pork butcher

58 Warner - 38 Gentlewoman Rose - 85 Baker Dobson

59 Watts Gentlewoman Webster - 53 Butcher Wells House painter & Decorator

60 Wagstaff Lodginghoiuse keeper Duff - 45 Dressmaker Pottage - 60 Joiner & builder

61 Richey Lieutenant Royal Artillery Webster - 53 Tinner & Iron monger Belcher - 86 Market gardener & fruiterer

62 Wright - 68 Joiner Conn - 33 Gunsmith & Engineer Hawkin - 61 Farmer & Dairyman

63 Mawdesley Practical engineer Pottage - 60 Joiner & Builder Burley Iron striker

64 Thompson Articled clerk solicitor Belcher - 86 Market gardener Beverley - 79 Railway sack department

65 Temple Shoemaker Sanderson Inmate of hospital Black General labourer

66 Harrison - 18 Hotel waiter Hawkins - 61 Dairyman & Coal merchant Bowls Publican

67 Hattee - 69 Telegraph Clerk Douglas - 87 Engine driver Willis Railway shunter

68 Creser - 46 Painter and Decorator Usher Coach painter Richardson - 19 Railway carriage cleaner

69 Maynard Commercial Traveller Harrison - 18 Carriage builder Leeman Railway office cleaner

70 Taylor - 70 Retired grocer Stephenson - 58 Shoeing smith Barker Boiler makers helper

71 Clarke - 71 Rector Leadbetter Grocer Temple Shoemaker

72 Hollon Retired merchant Crookell Railway clerk Buckle Coach painter

73 Gillespie Colonel Daniel - 55 Living on own means Rees Printer

74 Pickering - 72 Retired woolen merchant Sotherale* Bookseller stationer Hutchinson Grocer shopkeeper

75 Davison Retired chemist Hobden Living on own means Croskill Railway mineral agent

76 Swales - 54 Railway goods traffic manager Lowe - 66 Commercial traveller Dalton Letter ? Appartment

77 Hornsey Architect land agent & engineer Robmoon* Living on own means Spears Apartments

78 Doughty York Etherington Commercial traveller Abbey Retired draper

79 Daniel - 55 Whixley Fisk Baptist minister Lowe - 66 Coal agent

80 Johnson - 73 * Forbes - 56 Living on own means Connell Registrar of the York City Bank

81 Taylor - 70 * Kay Boot and shoe maker Stirling Presbyterian Minister

82 Kashway* Malster Pauling - 74 Railway manager Simpson Clergyman C of E

83 Forbes - 56 Rents of houses Bushell Apprentice of employment manager* Maughan Mechanical engineer

84 Aitken Rents of houses Falconer - 76 Living on own means Forbes - 56

85 Pauling - 74 Railway goods manager Brady - 44 Living on own means Thompson Auctioneer & Valuer

86 Watson - 75 Annuitant Pickering - 72 Solicitor Walpole Civil Service Collector of Inland Revenue

87 Falconer - 76 Railway inspector Tennant - 88 Railway manager Forsyth Railway traffic manager

88 Brady - 44 Dividends & Annuity Nottingham - 77 Lets apartments Dunnill Railway solicitor

89 Pickering - 72 Annuitant Jones Foreman machine fitter Priest Boarding house keeper

90 Spense - 27 Dividends Pusles* Railway goods traffic manager Tennant - 88 Railway solicitor

91 Nottingham - 77 Private lodging house Watson - 75 Independent means Richardson - 19 Railway engine fitter

92 Pecksniff* Retired wollen merchant Henderson Foreman mechanical engineer

93 Busswell* Civil service Manager General Post Office Hornsey Land agent

94 Johnson - 73 Wholesale salesman Swales Railway traffic manager

95 Clarke - 71 Rector Atkinson Solicitor Notary Public

96 Taylor - 70 Living on own means Bushel Agricultural implement maker

97 Taylor - 70 Mechanical engineer

98 Johnson - 73 Printer & Wholesale Stationer

99 Stephens Clergyman C of E

100 Taylor - 70 Merchant retired

Joiner Carpenter

cc

Total IFs = 91Total PSs = 44; Total IFs = 79 Total PSs = 43; Total IFs = 82

PSs 58 to 77 present > 20 years = 13




PSs 45 to 57 present > 10 years = 13 PSs 45 to 57 present > 20 years = 7 PSs 45 to 57 present > 30 years = 5

PSs 30 to 44 present > 20 years = 6 PSs 30 to 44 present > 30 years = 3


PSs 15 to 29 present > 30 years = 3 PSs 15 to 29 present > 40 years = 2 PSs 15 to 29 present > 50 years = 2


1901 Census1881 Census 1891 Census

289


1841 Census 1851 Census 1861 Census 1871 Census 1881 Census 1891 Census 1901 Census

1 Holgate Lane Holgate Lane 64 Holgate Road 2 Holgate Road 64 Holgate Road Holgate Road 2 Holgate Rd

2 Holgate Lane Holgate Lane 65 Holgate Road 3 Holgate Road 65 Holgate Road Bentley's Yard 3 Holgate Rd

3 Holgate Lane 19 Holgate Lane 66 Holgate Road 4 Holgate Road 66 Holgate Road 4 Holgate Rd

4 5 Holgate Road 5 Holgate Rd

5 Holgate Lane Holgate Lane 67 Holgate Road 6 Holgate Road 67 Holgate Road 6 Holgate Rd

6 7 Holgate Road 7 Holgate Rd

7 Holgate Lane 18 Holgate Lane 68 Holgate Road 8 Holgate Road 68 Holgate Road Thompsons Cottages 10 Holgate Rd

8 Holgate Lane Holgate Lane 69 Holgate Road 9 Holgate Road 69 Holgate Road Thompsons Cottages Holgate Rd/Johnsons Yard

9 Holgate Lane Holgate Lane 70 Holgate Road 10 Holgate Road 70 Holgate Road Thompsons Cottages Holgate Rd/Johnsons Yard

10 Holgate Lane Holgate Lane (Yard) 71 Holgate Road 10 Holgate Road 71 Holgate Road Holgate Road Holgate Rd/Johnsons Yard

11 Holgate Lane Holgate Lane (Yard) 72 Holgate Road Holgate Road 72 Holgate Road Holgate Road Holgate Rd/Johnsons Yard

12 Holgate Lane Holgate Lane (Yard) 73 Holgate Road 11 Holgate Road 73 Holgate Road Holgate Road 11 Holgate Rd

13 Holgate Lane Holgate Lane (Yard) 75 Holgate Road 12 Holgate Road 74 Holgate Road Holgate Road 12 Holgate Rd



16 Holgate Lane Holgate Lane 78 Holgate Road 15 Holgate Road 77 Holgate Road Johnson's Yard 13 Holgate Rd

17 Holgate Lane Holgate Lane 79 Holgate Road 16 Holgate Road 78 Holgate Road Johnson's Yard 14 Holgate Rd

18 Holgate Lane Holgate Lane St Catherine's Cottages 17 Holgate Road 79 Holgate Road Johnson's Yard 15 Holgate Rd

19 Holgate Lane 4 Holgate Lane St Catherine's Cottages 18 Holgate Road 80 Holgate Road Johnson's Yard 16 Holgate Rd

20 Holgate Lane 5 Holgate Lane St Catherine's Cottages 19 Holgate Road 81 Holgate Road Holgate Road 17 Holgate Rd


22 Holgate Lane Holgate Lane 83 Holgate Road 21 West Parade 83 Holgate Road Holgate Road 19 Holgate Rd





27 Holgate Lane Holgate Lane 3 Holgate Road 2 Blenheim Place 3 Holgate Road Holgate Road 6 West Parade

28 Holgate Lane Holgate Lane 5 Holgate Road 2 Blenheim Place 4 Holgate Road Holgate Road 25 Holgate Rd

29 Holgate Lane 6 Holgate Road 3 Blenheim Place 6 Holgate Road Holgate Road 2 Blenheim Place

30 Holgate Lane 6 Holgate Road 4 Blenheim Place 7 Holgate Road Holgate Road 3 Blenheim Place

31 Holgate Lane Holgate Lane 7 Holgate Road 5 Blenheim Place 9 Holgate Road Holgate Road 4 Blenheim Place

32 8 Holgate Road

33 Holgate Lane 9 Holgate Road 6 Blenheim Place 10 Holgate Road Johnson's Yard Holgate Road 5 Blenheim Place

34 Holgate Lane Holgate Lane 10 Holgate Road 31 Holgate Crescent 10 Holgate Road Johnson's Yard Holgate Road Holgate Rd/Conservative Club

35 Holgate Lane 10 Holgate Road 32 Holgate Crescent 10 Holgate Road Johnson's Yard Holgate Road 31 Holgate Rd

36 Holgate Lane Holgate Road 10 Holgate Road 33 Holgate Crescent 10 Holgate Road Johnson's Yard Holgate Road Holgate Rd/Crystal Palace Hotel

37 Holgate Lane 10 Holgate Road 34 Holgate Crescent 11 Holgate Road Holgate Road 34 Holgate Crescent

38 Holgate Lane Holgate Road 10 Holgate Road 35 Holgate Crescent 12 Holgate Road Holgate Road 35 Holgate Crescent

39 Holgate Road 11 Holgate Road 36 Holgate Crescent 13 Holgate Road Holgate Villa Holgate Road 36 Holgate Crescent

40 Holgate Road Holgate Villa Holgate Road 37 Holgate Crescent Blenheim Place Crystal Palace Holgate Road 37 Holgate Crescent

41 Holgate Crescent 14 South Terrace Holgate Road 38 Holgate Crescent 34 Holgate Crescent Crystal palace 38 Holgate Crescent

42 Holgate Crescent 15 South Terrace Holgate Road 39 Holgate Crescent 33 Holgate Crescent Holgate Crescent 39 Holgate Crescent

43 Holgate Crescent 16 South Terrace Holgate Road 40 Holgate Crescent 36 Holgate Crescent 40 Holgate Crescent



46 Holgate Road 19 South Terrace 64 Holdgate Road 38 Holgate Crescent 43 Holgate Crescent

47 Holgate Crescent West Parade Holgate Road 38 Holgate Crescent 64 Holgate Rd

48 Holgate Crescent 20 West Parade Holgate Road 65 Holdgate Road 39 Holgate Crescent 65 Holgate Rd

49 Holgate Crescent 21 West Parade Holgate Road 67 Holdgate Road 40 Holgate Crescent 66 Holgate Rd

50 Holgate Crescent 22 West Parade Holgate Road 68 Holdgate Road 41 Holgate Crescent Holgate Road 67 Holgate Rd

51 Holgate Terrace 23 West Parade Holgate Road 70 Holdgate Road 42 Holgate Crescent 68 Holgate Rd

52 Holgate Terrace 6 West Parade Holgate Road 71 Holdgate Road 43 Holgate Crescent Camden House 69 Holgate Rd

53 Holgate Terrace 25 Blenheim Place Holgate Road 72 Holdgate Road Holgate Crescent Commercial College 70 Holgate Rd

54 Holgate Terrace 26 Blenheim Place Holgate Road 73 Holdgate Road 31 Blenheim Place 71 Holgate Rd



57 Holgate Terrace Blenheim Place Holgate Road 76 Holdgate Road 5 Blenheim Place 74 Holgate Rd

58 Holgate Terrace Blenheim Place Holgate Road 77 Holdgate Road 4 Blenheim Place 75 Holgate Rd

59 Holgate Terrace 33 Holgate Crescent Holgate Road 78 Holdgate Road 3 Blenheim Place 76 Holgate Rd

60 Holgate Terrace 34 Holgate Crescent 79 Holdgate Road 2 Blenheim Place 77 Holgate Rd

61 Holgate Terrace 35 Holgate Crescent 1 St Catharine Cottages 2 Blenheim Place 78 Holgate Rd

62 Holgate Terrace 36 Holgate Crescent 2 St Catharine Cottages 25 Blenheim Place 79 Holgate Rd

63 Holgate Terrace 37 Holgate Crescent Holdgate Road 25 Blenheim Place 1 Thompsons Cottages

64 Holgate Road 38 Holgate Crescent 82 Holdgate Road 2 Thompsons Cottages

65 Holgate Road 39 Holgate Crescent 1 Bentley's Yard 6 West Parade Holgate Road 3 Thompsons Cottages

66 Holgate Road 40 Holgate Crescent 2 Bentley's Yard 22 West Parade 81 Holgate Rd/Crown Inn

67 Paradise Cottage 41 Holgate Crescent 3 Bentley's Yard 21 West Parade 1 Bentleys Yard

68 Rose Cottage 42 Holgate Crescent 4 Bentley's Yard 20 West Parade 2 Bentleys Yard

69 Rose Mount Nursery 43 Holgate Crescent West Parade House 3 Bentleys Yard

70 Holgate Lane 3 Holgate Terrace 83 Holdgate Road Holly Bank 4 Bentleys Yard

71 10 Holgate Lane Holgate Terrace 84 Holdgate Road St Pauls Rectory 1 Holgate Terrace 83a Holgate Rd

72 9 Holgate Lane Holgate Terrace Boothroyd Holdgate Road Holgate Hill 2 Holgate Terrace 83 Holgate Rd

73 8 Holgate Lane 47 Holgate Terrace 84 Holdgate Road Holgate Hill 3 Holgate Terrace 84 Holgate Rd

74 7 Holgate Lane 49 Holgate Terrace 1 Holgate Terrace Holgate Hill 4 Holgate Terrace 1 Holgate Terrace

75 6 Holgate Lane 49 Holgate Terrace 2 Holgate Terrace Holgate Hill 47 Holgate Terrace 2 Holgate Terrace

76 Holgate Lane 50 Holgate Terrace 3 Holgate Terrace Holgate Hill 48 Holgate Terrace 3 Holgate Terrace

77 Holgate Lane Groom's Cottages 51 Holgate Terrace 4 Holgate Terrace Holgate Hill 49 Holgate Terrace 4 Holgate Terrace

78 Groom's Cottages 52 Holgate Terrace 5 Holgate Terrace 1 Holgate Terrace 50 Holgate Terrace 47 Holgate Terrace

79 3 Groom's Cottages 54 Holgate Terrace 49 Holgate Terrace 2 Holgate Terrace 52 Holgate Terrace 48 Holgate Terrace

80 Holgate Lane 56 Holgate Terrace 50 Holgate Terrace 5 Holgate Terrace 53 Holgate Terrace 49 Holgate Terrace

81 4 Holgate Lane 56 Holgate Terrace 51 Holgate Terrace 6 Holgate Terrace 54 Holgate Terrace 50 Holgate Terrace

82 *Lodge 52 Holgate Terrace 8 Holgate Terrace 55 Holgate Terrace 51 Holgate Terrace

83 Holgate Lane 58 Holgate Hill 53 Holgate Terrace 10 Holgate Terrace 56 Holgate Terrace 52 Holgate Terrace

84 Holgate Lane 59 Holgate Road Villa 54 Holgate Terrace 11 Holgate Terrace 57 Holgate Terrace The Poplars 53 Holgate Terrace

85 60 Holgate Road 55 Holgate Terrace 12 Holgate Terrace 58 Holgate Terrace 54 Holgate Terrace

86 Rose Cottage 57 Holgate Terrace 13 Holgate Terrace 59 Holgate Terrace 56 Holgate Terrace

87 Holgate Terrace 14 Holgate Terrace The Poplars 60 Holgate Terrace Holgate Hill House 57 Holgate Terrace

88 58 Holgate Terrace 58 Holgate Hill 61 Holgate Terrace Rose Cottage 58 Holgate Terrace/St Pauls Lodge

89 59 Holgate Terrace 59 Holgate Hill 62 Holgate Terrace North Eastern House 59 Holgate Hill

90 Holgate Terrace 60 Holgate Hill 2 Ash Villas 60 Holgate Hill

91 The Rectory Rose Cottage Hayesthorpe Rose Cottage Holgate Hill

92 Holly Bank Melton House Cottage Holgate Beck

93 Polvellan Ashville Holgate Road

94 The Chestnuts Ashwells Holgate Road

95 St Pauls Rectory Hayesthorpe Holgate Road

96 Holly Bank Melton House Holgate Road

97 Polvellan Holgate Road

98 Chesnut Holgate Road

99 St Pauls Rectory Holgate Rd

100 Holly Bank Holgate Hill

290

Appendices 16 to 19

Household Heads and Persistent Surnames of Holgate Road, St Paul’s

Terrace, Railway Terrace, and St Paul’s Square

The isonymic heads of household of Holgate Road, St Paul’s Terrace, Railway Terrace and St

Paul’s Square are named in Appendices 16 to 19. A persistent surname (PS) is defined as the

same surname which was present as a household head in two or more consecutive censuses.

The persistent surnames are identified in the boxes coloured green and in boxes shaded with

either a stippled or a diagonal pattern. A box coloured green signifies the first occasion on

which a household head with a persistent surname was present in the census years, and the

persistent surnames are numbered sequentially in these boxes by the order in which they first

appeared in the censuses. A diagonal shaded box signifies the occasions on which a

persistent surname appeared at the same address in subsequent censuses; a stippled shaded

box signifies the occasions on which a persistent surname appeared at a different address in

subsequent censuses.

Pages 1 and 2 of Appendix 16 show the household heads of Holgate Road in census years

1841 to 1871 and 1881 to 1901 respectively. The numbering of houses in Holgate Road

altered between censuses, and the enumerators did not follow the same route on different

occasions. It is not possible therefore to plot the houses occupied by persistent household

heads with the same surname. However, the surnames in each census are listed in the order

in which they were enumerated. The houses are also listed in the order in which they were

enumerated at each census in page 3, and the household heads and the houses in which they

lived are numbered correspondingly 1 to 100 in the left column in pages 1, 2 and 3. It is

therefore possible to identify the address of each household head at each census. Similarly

the houses of St Paul’s Square (Appendix 19) were not numbered consistently by the census

enumerators, and it is not possible therefore to identify with confidence the same house over

different censuses. Data on families probably living in the same house in St Paul’s Square at

different censuses have been excluded from calculations. The house numbers as recorded in

the census schedules of St Paul’s Terrace and Railway Terrace appear in Appendices 17 and

18 in the column to the left of census lists 1881, 1891 and 1901. The houses in the 1871

census list had no numbers recorded. (* denotes an illegible word in the census schedule.)

The data in these Appendices have been used in the mapping of families in Figure 29.

291

Appendix 17

Household Heads and Persistent Surnames of St Paul’s Terrace [1]

House Number

Fearnley Engine driver 1 Till Grocer

Harrington Joiner 2 Broadbelt Engine fitter

Priestley - 1 Engine driver 3 Towler - 12 Railway carriage painter

Henderson - 2 Engine driver 4 Dutton Railway labourer

Malthouse - 3 Engine driver 5 Hutton - 13 Railway wagon builder

Newby Engine driver 6

Foster - 4 Engine driver 7 Morrell Ship carpenter

Richardson - 5 Railway fireman 8

Naylor - 6 Joiner 9 Fletcher Railway engine driver

Harrison - 7 Timber inspector 10 Kitchin Wagon builder

Kendall Engine driver 11 Braithwaite Foreman shunter

Graham Engine driver 12 Smith - 14 Sawyer

Shipley Joiner 13 Darley Sawyer

Bell - 8 Joiner 14 Bean Railway engine driver

Theakston Shopkeeper 15 Campion - 15 Railway checker goods station

Vallance - 9 Blacksmith 16 Stabler - 10 Housekeeper

Ingleby Joiner 17 Armitage - 16 Wagon builder

Gladders Joiner 18 Byers - 17 Railway wagon greaser

Stabler - 10 Cab driver 19 Vallans - 9 Blacksmith

Sutcliff - 11 Engine driver 20 Pickup Railway engine stoker

Wells Labourer 21 Birch - 18 Railway carriage builder

Vollans Engine driver 22 Birch - 18 Railway carriage builder

Metcalfe Fireman 23 Byers - 17 Railway wagon builder

Acomb Engine driver 24 Spence - 19 Railway wagon builder

Nelson Grocer 25 Roe Locomotive fireman

Hunter Joiner 26 Swinburne Engine fitter

Monallee Joiner 27 Starsmore - 20 Railway signalman

28 Bowers Wagon builder

29 Binnington - 21 Grocer

30 Bains Engine driver at works

31 Allatt Joiner at works

32 Bielby Railway engine driver

33 Rochester Railway wagon builder

34 Ewbank Wheelwright

35 Clark - 22 Sawyer

36 Dunnington - 23 Joiner

37 Shaw - 24 Engine fitter

38 Leaf Joiner & Wheelwright

39 Alport - 25 Blacksmith

40 Neesam - 26 Wagon builder

41 Thompson - 27 Railway engine driver

42 Thompson - 27 Wheelwright

43 Walker - 28 Wagon builder

44 Lewins - 29 Railway guard

45 Wheatcroft Railway engine driver

46 Race Wagon builder

47 Harrison - 7 Timber inspector

48 Naylor - 6 Carriage builder

49 Ridley - 30 Wagon builder

50 Foster - 4 Railway engine driver

51

52

53 Henderson - 2 Railway engine driver

54 Priestley - 1 Railway engine driver

55 East Boiler smith

56 Jones - 31 Carriage builder

57 Flint - 32 Bank cashier

58 Davison - 33 Railway engineer

59 Smith - 14 Railway ticket examiner

60 Hague - 34 Railway porter

61 Cundall Railway porter

62 Lee Railway fireman

63 Richardson - 5 No occupation

64 Sutcliffe - 11 Railway engine driver

65 Jackson - 35 Railway carriage builder

66 Bell - 8 Wagon builder

67 Skilbeck - 36 Wagon builder

68 Gibson - 37 Wagon builder

69 McTurk Railway guard

70 Hall - 38 Boiler smith at works

71 Marston - 39 Joiner

Malthouse - 3 Railway engine driver

Total IFs = 27 Total PSs = 39; Total IFs = 64

PSs resident in same house for a further 10 to 20 years = 13

PSs resident in same house for at least a further 20 years = 22

New PSs 12 to 39 = 28



292

Household Heads and Persistent Surnames of St Paul’s Terrace [2]

House Number

1 Scaife Grocer Calvert Grocer shopkeeper & Post mist

2 Simpson - 40 Railway stoker Grimshaw Joiner

3 Towler - 12 Coach painter Towler - 12 Railway carriage painter

4 Dobson - 41 Railway waggon builder Blackford Joiner

5 Stabler - 10 Gardener Domestic servant Entwistle Railway timber inspector

6 Marshall - 42 Labourer Marshall - 42 Railway wagonshop labourer

7 Dunnington - 23 Labourer Johnston *Coach body worker

8 Peckitt Joiner Fletcher Railway guard

9 Smith - 14 Labourer Stamp Laundress

10 Kitchen - 43 Waggon builder Hill Widow

11 Hall - 38 Carriage trimmer Fratson Railway wheelwright

12 Clare Stationery engine driver Siddell Blacksmith

13 Wardman Railway clerk Dobson - 41 Railway blacksmith

14 Cook - 44 Locomotive engine driver Hutton - 13 Railway goods porter

15 Campion - 15 Railway clerk Holmes Railway carriage painter

16 Stabler - 10 Lets lodgings Armitage - 16 Colliery agents clerk

17 Armitage - 16 Railway waggon builder Balme Sawyer (Wood)

18 Byers - 17 Waggon wheel turner Byers - 17 Railway wagon wheel turner

19 Jones - 31 Fitter Jones - 31 Railway locomotive engine fitter

20 Smithson Cabinet maker Humphreys Railway stationary engine driver

21 Birch - 18 Joiner Birch - 18 Joiner

22 Simpson - 40 Railway waggon builder Brown Blacksmith

23 Simpson - 40 Railway signal fitter Simpson - 40 Railway signal inspector

24 Spence - 19 Joiner Spence - 19 Joiner

25 Severs Railway waggon builder Pennock Railway joiner

26 Baines - 45 Labourer Baines - 45 Railway engine stoker

27 Starsmore - 20 Takes in lodgers Harsmore Widow

28 Deeke Joiner Terry Sawyer

29 Binnington - 21 Lets lodgers & shopkeeper Chappell Widow

30 Wedgwood Blacksmith Shaw - 24 Railway coach builder

31 Malthouse - 3 Locomotive engine worker Woodfell Railway carriage joiner

32 Buttle Living on own means Hodgson - 47 Wife resident; husband absent

33 Robinson - 46 Groom Burnett Cabinet maker

34 Alport - 25 Blacksmith Kitchen - 43 Joiner

35 Clark - 22 Sawyer Campion - 15 Railway checker goods station

36 Smith - 14 Carriage builder Maddison Railway clearing house number taker

37 Shaw - 24 Engine fitter retired Shaw - 24 Printer compositor

38 Hession Railway blacksmith

39 Alport - 25 Blacksmith Ibbitson Railway wagon inspector

40 Neesam - 26 Waggon builder Neesam - 26 Railway wagon prepairing

41 Haithwaite Blacksmith Smith - 14 Joiner

42 Thompson - 27 Joiner* Thompson - 27 Railway wagon builder

43 Walker - 28 Joiner Walker - 28 Joiner

44 Lewins - 29 Railway guard Byrne - 49 Railway foreman carriage shop worker

45 Hodgson - 47 Railway engine driver Hodgson - 47 Railway engine driver

46 Thompson - 27 Coachman & gardener Thompson - 27 Coachman gardener

47 Smith - 14 Engine driver Simpson - 40 Railway foreman porter

48 Naylor - 6 Joiner Naylor - 6 Joiner

49 Ridley - 30 Joiner Dunnington - 23 Widow

50 Foster - 4 Widow Foster - 4 Widow

51 Malthouse - 3 Shoemaker Malthouse - 3

52 Malthouse - 3 Locomotive engine driver

53 Henderson - 2 Lets lodgings Simpson - 40 Railway wagon builder

54 Priestley - 1 Lets lodgings *Beel Railway signalman

55 Hutton - 13 Railway waggon builder Hutton - 13 Joiner

56 Eckels Railway signalman Byrne - 49 Railway coach plummer

57 Gibson - 37 House carpenter Robinson - 46 Railway carriage wheelwright

58 Davison - 33 Railway engine driver Davison - 33 Railway locomotive engine shed

59 Smith - 14 Railway ticket examiner Smith - 14 Railway ticket examiner York station

60 Hague - 34 Railway porter Hague - 34 Railway passenger guard

61 Flint - 32 Retired laundress Cook - 44 Railway locomotive engine fitter

62 Wilmin - 48 Railway shunter Wilmin - 48 Railway traffic foreman

63 Byrne - 49 Railway coach builder Lewins - 29 Widow

64 Arthington Railway carriage smith Moss Joiner

65 Jackson - 35 Joiner Jackson - 35 Joiner

66 Bell - 8 Joiner Barnes General labourer out of work

67 Skilbeck - 36 Joiner Skilbeck - 36 Railway steam engine maker fitter

68 Gibson - 37 Waggon builder Gibson - 37 Joiner

69 Harker Railway porter Mann Railway goods shunter

70 Hall - 38 Boiler smith Hall - 38 Boilersmith

71 Marston - 39 Wife resident; husband absent Lilley Widow

Not stated

Total PSs = 45; Total IFs = 58 Total IFs = 62






293

Appendix 18

Household Heads and Persistent Surnames of Railway Terrace [1]

House Number

Garretty Engine driver 1 Middleton Shoemaker

Shaw Engine driver 2 Grainger Railway engine driver

Dilworth Waggon builder 3 Dickens Railway signalman

Talbot Smith 4 Rotherham - 2 Engine fitter

Holborn - 1 Engine driver 5 Rotherham - 2 Dressmaker

Blakey Smith 6 Linfoot Wagon builder

Wiseman Engine driver 7 Raper - 3 Railway clerk

Hill Foreman railway 8 Dunnington Joiner & Wheelwright

Coop Waggon builder 9 Wilson Boarding house keeper

Gibson Engine driver 10 Webster - 4 Butcher

Coulson Smith 11 Bradley Cabinet maker

Clayton Labourer 12 Rayson - 5 Bricklayer

13 Morrallee - 6 Joiner

14 Middleton Railway wagon builder

15 Arnett - 7 Wheelwright

16 Watson - 8 Engine fitter

17 Gawthorpe Engine fitter

18 Chipchase - 9 Cabinet maker

19 Freeman - 10 Plumber

20 Peckitt Wagon builder

21 Race - 11 Wagon builder

22 Hall Foreman labourer

23 Holborn - 1 Railway engine driver

24 Denterman Engine fitter

25 Creaser Machine fitter

26 Cooper - 12 Wagon builder

27 Stephens Former wheelwright

28 Gray - 13 Railway truck maker

29 Hopper Engine fitter

30 Edwards - 14 Carriage spring maker

31 Parkin - 15 Wagon builder

32 Rennison - 16 Retired grocer

33 Sharpe

New PSs = 1 PS 1 present > 10 years = 1


New PSs 2 to 16 = 15

PSs resident in same house for a further 10 to 20 years = 7


Total IFs = 12 Total PSs = 16; Total IFs = 32

294

Household Heads and Persistent Surnames of Railway Terrace [2]

House Number

1 Hale Railway carriage builder Milner Railway Coach painter

2 Brown - 17 Joiner Hunt Joiner & Wheelwright

3 Gibson Joiner Mann Railway Goods porter

4 Rotheram - 2 Engine fitter Rotherham - 2 Railway locomotive engine fitter

5 Noble Railway carriage builder Williamson Schoolmaster

6 Lightfoot Railway waggon builder Suter Joiner carpenter

7 Raper - 3 Retired pension clerk Bardict Railway clearing house number taker

8 Button - 18 Railway porter Button - 18 Railway porter retired

9 Johnson - 19 Railway goods porter Johnson - 19 Railway porter

10 Webster - 4 Butcher Newby Railway wagon painter

11 Taylor - 20 Engine driver Taylor - 20 Railway engine driver

12 Rayson - 5 Bricklayer King House painter

13 Morrallee - 6 Labourer Morrallee - 6 Joiner carpenter

14 Leadley - 21 Wheelwright Leadley - 21 Railway wheelwright

15 Arnett - 7 Wheelwright Birkinshaw Railway coach painter

16 Watson - 8 Engine fitter Watson - 8 Railway engine fitter retired

17 Hutchinson Railway wheelwright

18 Chipchase - 9 Joiner Chipchase - 9 Joiner, out of work

19 Freeman - 10 Laundress Arrowsmith Railway guard

20 Wade - 22 Railway guard Wade - 22

21 Coulson - 23 Coulson - 23 Railway shunter

22 Race - 11 Joiner Brown - 17 Railway wagon Wright Foreman

23 Hawkswell - 24 Painter Hawkswell - 24

24 Thackwray - 25 Blacksmith Thackwray - 25 Blacksmith

25 Stephenson - 26 Wheelwright Stephenson - 26

26 Cooper - 12 Waggon builder Cooper - 12 Railway Joiner

27 Waiting Railway waggon inspector Giddings Railway carriage painter

28 Gray - 13 Railway waggon builder Gawthrop Fitter

29 Cooper - 12 Blacksmith Cooper - 12 Blacksmith

30 Edwards - 14 Railway spring maker Edwards - 14 Railway wagon maker

31 Parker - 15 Railway waggon inspector Parkin - 15 Railway carriage and wagon inspector

32 Rennison - 16 Living on own means Clark Laundress

33 Rennison - 16 Railway shunter Rennison - 16 Railway Goods shunter

PS 1 present > 20 years = 0 PS 1 present > 30 years = 0





Total PSs = 27; Total IFs = 31 Total IFs = 33

295

Appendix 19

Household Heads and Persistent Surnames of St Paul’s Square [1]

House Number House Number House Number

1 St Pauls Square Backhouse - 1 Architect & Surveyor 1 St Pauls Square Fletcher - 2 Carpenter 1 St Pauls Fletcher - 2

2 St Pauls Square Burden Gentlewoman 2 St Pauls Square Lara Commercial traveller 2 St Pauls Oates Dividends

3 St Pauls Square Matthews Superintendent of electric telegraph 3 St Pauls Square Peacock Agent in spirits 3 St Pauls Bardsley -15 Annuity

4 St Pauls Square Dixon Landed proprietor 4 St Pauls Square Harrison Annuitant 4 St Pauls Lee Railway rating agent

5 St Pauls Square Fletcher - 2 Fundholder 5 St Pauls Square Fletcher - 2 Clergyman widow 5 St Pauls Pendleton Annuitant

6 St Pauls Square Wilkinson - 3 Clergyman's widow 6 St Pauls Square Wilkinson - 3 Annuitant 6 St Pauls Wilkinson - 3 Dividends

7 St Pauls Square Sanderson Timber & slate merchant 7 St Pauls Square Mosley Teacher

8 St Pauls Square Wainwright Vicar of Holy Trinity Micklegate 8 St Pauls Square Newby Commercial traveller 8 St Pauls Wheeler Commercial traveller

9 St Pauls Square Jennings - 4 Manager of sack dept NER 9 St Pauls Square Jennings - 4 Railway manager 9 St Pauls Halley* Annuitant

10 St Pauls Square Hardy Retired farmer 10 St Pauls Square Walton - 10 10 St Pauls Walton - 10 Dividends

12 St Pauls Square Boddy Artist in water colour 12 St Pauls Sargent Wesleyan Minister

13 St Pauls Square Gill - 5 Clerk 13 St Pauls Gill - 5 Dividends

15 St Pauls Square Gill - 5 Railway cashier

16 St Pauls Square Sanderson *Master of 47 Regiment 16 St Pauls Square King Commission agent 16 St Pauls Oliver - 16 Locomotive fireman

17 St Pauls Square Cass Landed proprietor 17 St Pauls Square Inman - 11 Manager horse dept NER 17 St Pauls Grubb Teacher

18 St Pauls Square Perkins - 9 Attorney Registrar of York County Court 18 St Pauls Perkins - 9 Solicitor

St Pauls Square Ask Teacher 19 St Pauls Farrill* Ironmonger

St Pauls Square Wilson - 6 Goods manager NER 20 St Pauls Inman - 11` Railway Superintendent

St Pauls Square Calvert Contractor 21 St Pauls Wilson - 6 Mahogany Merchant

St Pauls Square Sanderson Fundholder 22 St Pauls Jasper* Coal merchant

St Pauls Square Jackson - 7 Lodging house keeper 23 St Pauls Proctor - 12 Ag & Chemical Manager

St Pauls Square Champeney Solicitor 24 St Pauls Square Edmundson Landowner; MA Cantab 24 St Pauls Barker Rents

St Pauls Square Cobb Fundholder 25 St Pauls Square Proctor - 12 Agricultural merchant 25 St Pauls Hill Grocer

St Pauls Square Wilson - 6 Retired tradesman 26 St Pauls Square Smythe Minister of Baptist Church

St Pauls Square Taylor - 8 Grocer Tea dealer Tradesman 27 St Pauls Square Taylor - 8 Master grocer employing 5 hands

St Pauls Square Richardson Retired merchant 28 St Pauls Square Wilson - 6 Income from houses dividends 28 St Pauls Wilson - 6 Rent of Business*

St Pauls Square Steward Comb manufacturer 29 St Pauls Square Farrington Income from dividends 29 St Pauls Pearson Landowner

St Pauls Square Perkins - 9 Attorney & Solicitor, Registrar of York County Court 30 St Pauls Adams Commercial Traveller's wife

St Pauls Square Shephard Annuitant 31 St Pauls Square Hopkins - 13 Annuitant 31 St Pauls Hopkins - 13 Interest on Money

St Pauls Square Walton - 10 Landed proprietor 32 St Pauls Square Jackson - 7

33 St Pauls Square Dinsdale - 14 Income from dividends WRONG 33 St Pauls Dinsdale - 14 Dividends

34 St Pauls Square Maude Independent 34 St Pauls Willsay* Vicar of Thorganby

35 St Pauls Square Falconer Railway inspector 35 St Pauls Collier Minister of C of E

St Pauls Square Backhouse - 1 Architect 36 St Pauls Backhouse - 1 Architect & Surveyor


1881 Census1871 Census

Total PSs = 14; Total IFs = 28



1861 Census

Total IFs = 24





296

Household Heads and Persistent Surnames of St Paul’s Square [2]

House Number House Number

1 St Pauls Square Agar - 17 Lets appartments 1 St Pauls Sq Agar - 17 Living on own means

2 St Pauls Sq Oates

3 St Pauls Square Fletcher - 2 3 St Pauls Sq Rase Housewife

4 St Pauls Square Davidson Wesleyan Minister 4 St Pauls Sq Camidge Solicitor

5 St Pauls Square Tyers 5 St Pauls Sq Harrold Commercial traveller

6 St Pauls Square 6 St Pauls Sq Wilkinson

7 St Pauls Square Dunston Elementary teacher 7 St Pauls Sq Skerry Schoolmaster

8 St Pauls Sq Fletcher - 2

9 St Pauls Square Roden Railway clerk 9 St Pauls Sq Marston Independent means

10 St Pauls Square Parkin - 18 Architectural surveyor 10 St Pauls Sq Parkin - 18 Architect

11 St Pauls Square Kirkup Railway clerk 11 St Pauls Sq Slater Joiner carpenter

12 St Pauls Square Arnold Wesleyan Minister 12 St Pauls Sq Dixon Wesleyan Minister

13 St Pauls Square Gill - 5 Living on own means 13 St Pauls Sq Gill - 5

16 St Pauls Square Oliver - 16 Locomotive fireman 16 St Pauls Sq Atkinson Railway engine driver

17 St Pauls Square Bardsley - 15 Secretary 17 St Pauls Sq Ray Coach builder

18 St Pauls Square Perkins - 9 Solicitor 18 St Pauls Sq Perkins - 9 Solicitor

19 St Pauls Sq Bollans Living own means

20 St Pauls Square Inman - 11 Railway manager 20 St Pauls Sq Inman - 11 Railway superintendant

21 St Pauls Square Elliott - 19 Assistant superintendant railway works 21 St Pauls Sq Elliott & Howgate - 19 Bank accountant

22 St Pauls Square Newman - 20 Retired actuary 22 St Pauls Sq Newman - 20 Actuary

23 St Pauls Square Lewis Architect 23 St Pauls Sq Newman - 20 Actuary of Insurance Co

24 St Pauls Square Ikin Living on own means 24 St Pauls Sq Stephenson Railway auditor

25 St Pauls Square Clark - 21 Solicitors Clerk 25 St Pauls Sq Clarke - 21

28 St Pauls Square Metcalfe - 22 Living on own means 28 St Pauls Sq Thackray Living on own means

29 St Pauls Square Daniel - 23 Retired farmer 29 St Pauls Sq Daniel - 23 Retired farmer

30 St Pauls Square Race Retired missionary 30 St Pauls Sq Smith Mechanical engineer

31 St Pauls Square Hopkins - 13 Living on own means

32 St Pauls Square Rodger Life Assurance Superintendent 32 St Pauls Sq Carlton Farmer

33 St Pauls Square Dinsdale - 14 Living on own means 33 St Pauls Sq Demodale - 14

34 St Pauls Sq Metcalfe - 22

35 St Pauls Square Dillon Living on own means 35 St Pauls Sq Robinson Gentlemans outfitter

36 St Pauls Square Wonham* 36 St Pauls Sq Simpson Accountant

37 St Pauls Square Dash Surveyors Clerk 37 St Pauls Sq Anderson Tailor & Hosiery Shopkeeper

38 St Pauls Square Linley - 24 Methodist Ministry 38 St Pauls Sq Linley - 24 Living on own means

39 St Pauls Square Backhouse - 1 Living on own means 39 St Pauls Sq Backhouse - 1 Living on own means

PSs 1 to 10 present >30 years = 4






Total IFs = 33





297

Appendix 20

Household Heads and Persistent Surnames of Hope Street [1]

Craven Whitesmith Liddle Out of business Jacques Foundry labourer Redpath - 66 Plumber & Glazier

Robinson Linen weaver Dixon - 24 House Holder Hebden - 41 Charwoman Smith - 12 Bricklayer

Dunnington Washerwoman Peacock - 28 Blacksmith Dalton Charwoman Scarr Grocer

Brown - 1 Shoe maker Honley Ashmore - 38 Brass founder Fox Ag lab

Craven Linen weaver Pallister Shoemaker Ryan - 42 Laundress Potter Engine fitter

King Ag lab Shepherd - 4 *Plane maker Mercer - 43 Whitesmith Bagnall - 64 Iron moulder

Ward - 2 Joiner Thompson - 5 Porter Motherby Bricklayer Coggins - 45 Ag lab

Plummer Wood sawyer Brown - 1 Shoemaker Rafter* - 44 Ag lab Duffee Labourer saw mill

Appleyard -3 Bottle maker Hayton House Holder Melody Ag lab Gaughan - 67

Bosomworth Joiner Prince - 15 Gardener Coggins - 45 Ag lab McHale - 62 Ag lab

Bowman Cabinet maker Binney Groom Dougherty Bricklayers lab Burke - 63 Ag lab

Shepherd - 4 Rope maker Mooney - 30 Glass Maker Laverty Bricklayers lab Larkin Ag lab

Thompson - 5 HS Hobson - 31 Waterman Ryan - 42 Ag lab Holmes - 52 Labourer

Boldon Glass maker Smith - 12 Benson - 27 Charwoman Steel - 68 Glass blower

Fowler Gardener Shephard - 4 Appleton Brewer Steel - 68 Glass blower

Gibson Washerwoman Berrell Boot maker Ayers* Whitesmith Stanbrook Warrener

Drake - 6 Fishmonger Simpson - 13 Annuitant Sinane* Ag lab Bennett - 61 Brickyard lab

Clarke Lint manufacturer Thompson - 5 Printer Coulter Shoe maker Duffield Groom Domestic servant

Thrush Tailor Mullingon Charwoman McCabe Pedlar Halder - 69 Retired journeyman tailor

Charlton HS Thompson - 5 Housepainter Watkinson - 37 Waterman Hudson - 56 Glass blower

Smithson Joiner Smith - 12 Tailor Watkinson - 37 Vessel owner Dent - 65 Glass blower

Slater Joiner Appleyard - 3 Glass blower Brown - 1 Fireman glass works Wells Pig jobber

James Ind Watson - 20 Joiner Hannren Mason lab Davison Charwoman

Halder - 7 Joiner Boulton Labourer Duffy Smith lab Johnson - 70 Glass blower

Driffield - 8 Linen weaver Gill - 11 Corley Ag lab Wake

Swift Stone mason Hartley - 22 Sawyer Druggitt - 39 Washer woman Benton - 71 Labourer

Hodgson Joiner cabinet maker Harwood - 10 Soldier's widow Druggitt - 39 Packer glass works Wood - 19 Ironmolder

Gowland Baker Cairns Farmer's labourer McNulty - 46 Ag lab Mills Lab

Penrose Whitehead - 9 Iron moulder Brown - 1 Charwoman O'Hara - 47 Brickmaker

Tuxworth Sawyer Hannan Police officer Brennan Ag lab Swift - 72 Iron molder

Whitehead - 9 Glass blower Bland Joiner Perry - 40 Publican Morton - 73 Joiner

Pearson Spinster Driffield - 8 Robinson Basket maker Conway - 74 Ag lab

Cattle Ag lab Halder - 7 Joiner Lamb - 17 Shoe maker Gough Railway lab

Harwood - 10 Washerwoman Kitson Cordwainer *Carey - 18 Joiner Kirby - 59 Weaver

Fawcett Glasshouse foreman Rose Milliner Turner - 26 Rope maker Bean - 75 Cabinet maker

Flathers Joiner Wells Plane maker Jennings Carter Myton -76 Whitesmith

Gill - 11 Copley Whitesmith Chambers Wheelwright Delany Ag lab

Marshall Attorney's clerk Clark Lintmaker Cook Railway lab Allen Ag lab

Wilson Spinster Thompson - 5 Late innkeeper O'Hara - 47 Corporation lab Brannan - 77 Ag lab

Kirby Linen weaver Mackalin Wireworker Slater Smith engineer Beain - 75 Labourer

Smith - 12 Tailor Clifford - 32 Brickmaker Smith - 12 Bricklayer O'Hara - 47 Iron foundry lab

Thompson - 5 Painter Whitehead - 9 Moulder O'donnell Bricklayers lab Bolland Bricklayers lab

Thompson - 5 Painter Spence Weaver Whincup - 35 Ag lab Fairfoot Gunsmith

Abbott Shop keeper Kirk - 33 Joiner Molloy Ag lab Hobson - 31 Formerly waterman

Simpson - 13 Ind Dixon - 24 Weaver Barrett - 48 Farm work Simmons - 60 Engine driver

Steel - 14 Printer Wood - 19 Whitesmith Maher Ag lab Smith - 12 Chair maker

Lloyd Letter press painter Bellis - 34 Seamstress Maher Mortimer - 57 Hawker

Slater Gardener Chapman - 29 *Manufacturer Flood Ag lab Hobson - 31 Dressmaker

Carr Cow keeper Sanger Pauper charwoman Melody Ag lab Barrett - 48 Lab iron foundry

Brown - 1 Washerwoman McKenzie Ag lab Brown - 1 Ag lab Brown - 1 Shoemaker

Prince - 15 Gardener Whincup - 35 Jones - 49 Ag lab Cuff - 78 Ag lab

Burton - 16 Cowkeeper Benson - 27 Charwoman McAndrew Ag lab Roche - 79 Ag lab

Brown - 1 Shoe maker Gledhill Jones - 49 Ag lab Martin Ag lab

Thompson - 5 Linen weaver Pinder Goghan O'Neal Ag lab

Spenceley HS Henessy Charwoman Welsh Licensed hawker Shepherd - 4 Shop keeper

Heilds Gardener Wilberforce - 36 Gardener Conaughton Porter brewery Meek Labourer in Ironwork

Lamb - 17 Shoe maker Steel - 14 Tailor Gill - 11 Ag lab Shillito - 50 Glass maker

Carey - 18 Ind Watkinson - 37 Coal merchant Sullivan Laundress Barnacle Labourer

Handley Ind Mooney - 30 Glass maker James Shoe maker Dale Printer compositor

Wilson Shopkeeper Burton - 16 Charwoman Wood - 19 Waterman Dale Whitesmith

Collins Stone mason Parnaby Ag Lab Shillito - 50 Glass maker Horsman - 80 Linen weaver

Wood - 19 Ag lab Beach Brush maker Beal - 23 Navesby Bricklayers labourer

White Tailor Rochester Moulder Meynell Ag lab Doherty Railway lab

Watson - 20 Waterman Ashmore - 38 Pauper charwoman McGovern Bricklayers lab McNulty - 46 Ag lab

Vant Tailor Brown - 1 Shoemaker Ryan - 42 Ag lab McHale - 62

Vant Tailor Druggitt - 39 Charwoman Lyden - 51 Ag lab Benson - 27

Beeth Millwright Atley Charwoman Holmes - 52 White smith Johnson - 70 Joiner

Smailes Linen weaver Swann Glass maker Sharp Shoe maker Walden* Bricklayers labourer

Buttery - 21 Shoe maker Perry - 40 Book binder Rodes - 53 Whitesmith Duggan Ag lab

Total PSs = 50; Total IFs = 119 Total PSs = 58; Total IFs = 111Total IFs = 97 Total PSs = 41; Total IFs = 93


New PSs 66 to 90 = 25

New PSs 30 to 41 = 12







298


Laverick Tailor Turner - 26 Rope maker Kirk - 33 Joiner Gilligan - 81 Ag lab

Byers Glass blower May Pauper schoolmaster Inglein* Egan Field lab

Hill Glass maker Passmore Shoemaker Chelsea Pensioner Parkinson Huckster Gough Bricklayers lab

Hill Glass maker Passmore Glass maker Melody Bricklayers lab Hannon Foundry lab

Hartley - 22 Washerwoman Carey - 18 Carpenter Jordan - 54 Benson - 27 Bricklayers lab

Vause Joiner Tate Railway * Smith - 12 Chair maker Codley - 82 *

Carr Shoe maker Stasle* Chelsea pensioner Lambert - 55 Packer glass works Haynes *

Suffill HS Miller Whitesmith labourer Clifford - 32 Sawpit labourer Caverney Gardeners lab

Beal - 23 Cow keeper Sanderson Pauper charwoman Watson - 20 Dress maker Welch Gardeners lab

Lightfoot Ag lab Brown - 1 Collinson * Maker Battle - 83 Ag lab

Prest Stone mason Duigles* Bricklayer labourer Wingfield* Shop* Egan Ag lab

Rea Shoe maker Dobson Carpenter Cole* Whitesmith journeyman Moran Bricklayers lab

Payne Glass blower Cowling Tailor Ward* - 2 Falkeny - 84 Ag lab

Sayer Carpenter Howard Railway porter Lamb - 17 Ag lab Lyden - 51 Gardener

Dixon - 24 Washerwoman Flasher* Dressmaker Audly* Glass maker* Druggitt - 39 Railway lab

Rider Labourer Mitchell - 25 Retired proprietor of houses McCabe Dealer in brushes Graham Ag lab

Mitchell - 25 Waterman Martin Charwoman Shepherd - 4 Plane maker Mc* Railway lab

Martindale Tailor Ward - 2 Plaitlayer Gannon Ag lab Perry - 40 Licensed victualler

Beilby Cabinet maker Hebden - 41 Railway labourer Ryan - 42 Ag lab Betchetle Figure maker

Buckle Book keeper Newton Blacksmith McNab Works in fields Crane Ag lab

Habbishaw Bricklayer Dixon - 24 Groom Flannaghan Ag lab Foy Ag lab

Bistney Bricklayer Donaldson Laundress Brown - 1 Grocer shop Igo - 58 Drainer

Green Cooper Dale Assistant keeper railway Prince - 15 Boot maker journeyman Rivell Bricklayers lab

Webster Washerwoman Sweeney Ag lab Hudson - 56 Joiner at railway Jones - 49 Foundry lab

Dixon - 24 Linen weaver Beal - 23 Proprietor of houses Mortimer - 57 Licensed hawker Ryan - 42 Gardeners lab

Watson - 20 Joiner Lawler* Ag lab Wilson Shop keeper Kirby - 59 Tailor

Carey - 18 Joiner Duckworth Tailor Barnett Warehouseman Mercer- 43 Spike maker foundry

Barnett Shoe maker Morgan Glass maker Hobson - 31 Cuffie* - 78 Ag lab

Syton Washerwoman Halder - 7 Joiner James Silk & weav cleaner Gill - 11 Ag lab

Fletcher HS Fremington* Blacksmith Storey Farm lab Simpson Ag lab

Turner - 26 Rope maker Drake - 6 Glass maker McDonald Ag lab May Gardener

Birbeck Publican Lamb - 17 Brickmaker Heigo - 58 Ag lab Roche - 79 Ag lab

Whitehead - 9 Glass blower Marton Bricklayer Dagnell Railway lab Wincup Ag lab

Nicholl Stone mason Buttery - 21 Cook Handley Crollay* Field lab

Nappy Sanderson Gardener Forrester Brick lab Rafter* - 44 Ag lab

Syers Whitesmith Perfect Harness maker Jordan - 54 Nevell Field lab

Benson - 27 Shop keeper Waddington Fitter* Mooney - 30 Glass maker Quill*

Wise Gardener Pemberton Dressmaker Smith - 12 Tailor Wes local preacher Jordan - 54 Ag lab

Watters Bricklayers labourer Palliser Tailor Kirby - 59 Linen weaver Fox Ag lab

Thompson - 5 HS Brown - 1 Coach lace weaver Watson - 20 Joiner Jones - 49 Ag lab

Peacock - 28 Whitesmith Watson - 20 Pauper waterman Norwood Laundress Caveney Ag lab

Chapman - 29 Cow keeper Hopwood Gardener Coniton - 85 Ag lab

Myers Dress maker Gill - 11 Shop keeper Nicholson - 86 Ag lab

Pecks Line reeler Bailey Journeyman Trees Blacksmith

Beahon Bricklayer lab Grady Field lab

Benson - 27 Brickmaker Ryley - 87 Foundry lab

Wilberforce - 36 Green grocer Mennell - 88 Ag lab

Collins Flint glass blower Abbey - 89 Foundry lab

Huch Confectioner Calvert - 90 Joiner

Rhind Ag lab Williamson Foundry lab

Hicks Miller Metcalfe Foundry lab

Gordon Ag lab Rhodes - 53 Whitesmith

Bell Shopkeeper Bedford Linen weaver

Sturdy Blacksmith Myton - 76

Simmons - 60 Lab Wells Provision dealer

Holden House proprietor Barrett - 48 Ag lab

Donnelly Hawker Whitehead Shoe maker

Driffield - 8 Parish relief Lambert - 55 Railway lab

Bennet - 61 Lab Clark Printer compositor

Kelly Shopkeeper McGreaves Tailor

Dygnin Ag lab Belchette Glass blower

McHale - 62 Ag lab

Dagerty Bricklayer lab

Burke - 63 Lab in fields

Burke - 63 Ag lab

Lacklan Ag lab

Spackman Straw bonnet maker

Bagnall - 64 Iron moulder

McAnalty Ag lab

Mellor Labourer at Foundry

Smith - 12

Dent - 65 Tailor

Wood - 19 Journeyman

Bellis - 34 Income from Friends Soc


299


Horsman - 80 Linen weaver Watson - 114 Labourer Cook - 126 Farm labourer

Waverly Bricklayers labourer Rennie Private Royal Hussars Hughes Bricklayers labourer

Skidington Bricklayers labourer Shanks Bricklayers labourer Tiggles* Bricklayers labourer

Calpin - 91 Bricklayers labourer Dalton - 103 Living on own means Severs Groom

Birk Haw Glass bottle drier Grogan - 95 Lodging House Keeper

Storey Ag lab Henry - 110 Bricklayers labourer Sanderson House painter

Falkeny - 84 Gardeners labourer Calvert - 90 Confectioner Pawson - 125 Provision dealer

Calpin - 91 Bricklayers labourer Deighton Domestic servant Brady - 102 Plumbers labourer

Walder Bricklayers labourer Barrett - 48 Hawker McAndrew Bricklayers labourer

Flanigan - 92 Igo - 58 Thompson Bricklayers labourer

Flanigan - 92 Ag lab Beasty* - 115 Labourer Cahill Railway platelayers labourer

McGough - 93 Bricklayers labourer Ryan - 42 Gardener Haddakin

Flannery - 94 Bricklayers labourer Coggins - 45 Labourer Quigley Bricklayers labourer

Alderman Ag lab Mortimer - 57 Hawker Cawley Tailors machinist

Gill - 11 Ag lab Coughlin Labourer Elmer Railway carriage fitter

Druggitt - 39 Water works lab Calligan Labourer Harrison - 118 Farm labourer

Grogan - 95 Wright Organ case maker Clarke

Botchette Figure maker McAndrew - 116 Labourer Hick - 123 Retired gas fitter

Perry - 40 Butcher & Public Boland - 104 Bricklayers labourer Corcoran - 99 Farm field worker

Ryan - 42 Market gardener Law - 117 Labourer Steel - 68 Glass bottle maker

Jones - 49 Railway labourer Baines Labourer Stoir* Railway engine fitter

Croffee* Railway lab Brannan - 77 Labourer Beasty - 115 General labourer

Neales Bricklayer Whinn Labourer Ruckledge Agricultural labourer

Igo - 58 Ag lab Harrison - 118 Plumber Brannon - 77 Bricklayers labourer

Toy - 96 Neapsey Labourer Coulin

Odonnell - 97 Bricklayer labourer Odonnell - 97 Labourer Calpin - 91 Bricklayers labourer

Mercer - 43 Bottle washer Kirby - 59 Tailor Timms* Bricklayers labourer

Thorpe Shoe maker Cuff - 78 Labourer Jones - 49 Agricultural labourer

Pratt Ag lab Carr - 119 Labourer Gearing General labourer

Roche - 79 Confectioner Cowton* Smith - 12

Squires Charwoman Exelby - 106 Bricklayer Creaser Glass bottle worker

Oneil Bricklayer labourer Nightingale - 120 Glass bottle stopper Druggist General labourer glass works

Jordan - 54 Ag lab Flannery - 94 Bricklayers labourer McGough - 93 Field worker on farm

Conlin - 98 Ag lab Dawes Ag lab Phillips Organ grinder

Malley Ag lab Toy - 96 Labourer McDonald - 124 Farm labourer

Robinson Foundry lab Dawes Labourer Recchia Street musician

Corcoran - 99 Bricklayer lab Cooper Charwoman Annonis Street musician

Jones - 49 Ag work Armstrong - 121 Provision dealer Martino Street musician

Cavanagh - 100 McGough - 93 Labourer Swann Inn keeper

Coniton - 85 Ag lab Groghan Calpin - 91 Bricklayers labourer

Kevell Field work Holder Annuitant Bloom Bricklayers labourer

Bond Carpenters lab Grant Laundress Quinn Field worker

Snape - 101 Foundry lab Melvin Works in the fields Langan

Brady - 102 Bricklayer lab Roddy Labourer Saddler

Riley - 87 Iron moulder Battle - 83 Labour contractor Calpin - 91 Soldier

Mennell - 88 Ag lab Walden Labourer Cavanagh - 100 Gardeners labourer

Abbey - 89 Corporation lab Hancock - 122 Gardener Flanagan - 92 General farm labourer

Calvert - 90 Joiner Smith - 12 Labourer Murray Pig dealer (Assistant)

McConnill Boiler smith McHale - 62 Labourer Hogan - 113 Labourer saw mill

Abbey - 89 Confectioner Goughan - 67 McDonald - 124 Field worker

Flanigan - 92 Bricklayers lab Snape - 101 Labourer Rhodes

Dalton - 103 Shop keeper Caully Labourer Rowan - 107 Coal dealer

Barret - 48 Ag farm work Rowley Green grocer Varley Field worker

Grogan - 95 Lodging house Gains Hawker Barlow Bottle cleaner

Rider Dowdle Traveller Taylor Hawker

Willis Confectioners lab Roberts Chimney sweep Leadley General railway labourer

Nicholson - 86 Striker Gaughan - 67 Labourer Bowyer Bus driver

Pinder Railway lab Welsh - 112 Labourer Schofield General labourer

Kirby - 59 Forge man Jones - 49 Sack mender Flanagan - 92 Farm labourer

Hughes General labourer Pipes Sevant Kilmartin Labourer (Coal merchant)

Curtiss Bricklayers labourer Dickenson - 108 Horse dealer Heselwood

Snape - 101 Ironworks labourer Myers - 109 Provision dealer Horseman Firewood dealer

Redpath - 66 Gass fitter Horsman - 80 Labourer Houlson Railway goods porter

Denney Confectioner Roddy Watson - 114 Brewer's labourer

Shepherd - 4 Shopkeeper McGoff Living on own means Gleur* Seaforger*

Lazenby Pauper Sissons Laundress Smith - 12 Bottle labler

Grackan Rowan - 107 Labourer Marsdon Cocoa & Chocolate maker

Thompson Welsh - 112 Gardener Appleton General labourer

Sunderland Packer glassworks Calpin - 91 Bricklayers labourer Jackson Glass worker

Total PSs = 68; Total IFs = 112 Total PSs = 62; Total IFs = 105

1881 Census






New PSs 114 to 128 = 15

1891 Census







Total IFs = 103

1901 Census





300


Perry - 40 Bottle tester glassworks Myers - 109 Coal dealer White Bricklayers labourer

Brown - 1 Assistant overseer Rowan - 107 Brick maker Ryan - 42 Worker on farm

Caspar General labourer Wilson Charwoman Coggans

Brady - 102 Bricklayers labourer Calpin - 91 Labourer Roach Bricklayers labourer

Mortimer - 57 Hawker Cavanagh - 100 Labourer Mortimer - 57 Hawker

Peacock Iron moulder Perry - 40 Labourer Falkney Bricklayers labourer

Simmons - 60 Stocker Codley - 82 Labourer Pawson - 125 General labourer

Halson Mantlemaker Jones - 49 Labourer Sibbitt Railway labourer

Cuffee - 78 Railway lab McGoff Charwoman Hope Waterman barge

Boland - 104 General lab Mercer - 43 Working at glass works Bolan Bricklayers labourer

O'Hara - 47 Lab Ironworks Devill Coal labourer Turner Charwoman

Bean - 75 Ag lab Fannon Labourer NER Raftery - 128 Bricklayers labourer

Brannan - 77 Ag lab Conlin - 98 Labourer Toker Shopkeeper

Duffey - 105 General lab Allan Licensed Hawker Heffernan - 127 General labourer

Mary Corcoran - 99 Labourer Precious Iron moulder

Morton - 73 Joiner Hick - 123 Gas fitter Law - 117 General carter

Bean - 75 Cabinet maker Forrester Labourer Battle - 83 Bricklayers labourer

Kirby - 59 Packer McDonald - 124 Labourer Cuff - 78 General labourer

Cliffe General lab Harrison - 118 Labourer Carr - 119 Garden labourer

Conway - 74 Ag lab Mennell - 88 Hawker Codley - 82 Plasterer

Myton - 76 Simmons - 60 Calpin - 91 General labourer

Exelby - 106 Bricklayer Calvert - 90 Joiner Nightingale - 120 Smith's striker

O'Hara - 47 Brickmaker Baines Plasterer Bartle Blacksmith

Shaw General lab McKale Labourer NER Duport General labourer

Ridsdill Dressmaker Flanagan - 92 Labourer Falkner Rope maker

Benton - 71 Labr Brickyard Gunning Labourer Letby Glassblower

Bielby Grinder Squire Forewoman Maher Bricklayers labourer

Johnson - 70 Glassblower Pawson - 125 Labourer Horsman - 80 Furnaceman at Brickyard

Dawson Pauper Faulkener Farm labourer Armstrong - 121 Grocer shopkeeper

Steel - 68 Farmers daughter retired Grogan - 95 Charwoman Sapcote

Lister Provision dealer Walsh Labourer Calpin - 91 Bricklayers labourer

Smith - 12 Printer compositor Brady - 102 Labourer Grogan - 95 Bricklayers labourer

Clifford General lab Johnson - 70 Laundress Schofield Boot and shoe maker

Halder - 69 Retired tailor Cook - 126 Labourer Morrell Caol hawker

Rowan - 107 Slater Delaney Farm labourer Myers - 109 Bricklayer

Nelson Confectioner Heffernan - 127 Farm labourer Gaughan - 67 General labourer

Bennet - 61 General lab Shepherd - 4 Glass blower Battle - 83 Worker on farm

Battat Grocer & provision dealer Calpin - 91 Works in the fields Gaughan - 67 General labourer

Gilligan - 81 Bricklayers lab Igo - 58 Labourer Smith - 12 Worker on farm

Kneavsey Raftery - 128 Bricklayers labourer Wood Glassblower's labourer

Gaughan - 67 Allan Works in the fields Hancock - 122 Gardener

McHale - 62 General lab Roche - 79 General labourer Pagett General labourer

Burke - 63 General lab Duffy - 105 Bricklayers labourer Cawley Builder's labourer

Gaughan - 67 Pensioner Brannon - 77 Labourer Martino Street musician

Burke - 63 Bricklayer Calpin - 91 General labourer Smith - 12 Iron worker*

Coggins - 45 Labourer Gill - 11 General labourer Goulding Bricklayer's labourer

Dickenson - 108 Labourer Crane Labourer Ashworth General dealer shop

Daudican* Labourer Kitchin General labourer Murphy Bricklayer's labourer

Ryan - 42 Glassblower Jacques - 111 Fitter* Smith - 12 General labourer

Mealy Bricklayers labourer Bradley Hawker Sparkes

Myers - 109 Shopkeeper Hart General labourer Ward General labourer

Henry - 110 Bricklayers lab O'Conner Farm labourer McFarrland*

Codley - 82 Ag farm work Hogan - 113 Labourer

Jaques - 111 Smith lab Shread Works in the fields

Cavanagh - 100 Ag lab

Swift - 72 Bricklayer lab

Battle - 83 Ag lab

Battle - 83

Welsh - 112 Gardeners lab

Hogan - 113 Ag lab

Rowan - 107 Bricklayer lab

1901 Census1881 Census 1891 Census

301

Appendices 20 and 21

Household Heads and Persistent Surnames of Hope Street and Long

Close Land

The isonymic heads of household of Hope Street and Long Close Lane are named in

Appendices 20 and 21. A persistent surname (PS) is defined as the same surname

which was present as a household head in two or more consecutive censuses. The

persistent surnames are identified in the boxes coloured green and in boxes shaded with

a stippled pattern. A box coloured green signifies the first occasion on which a

household head with a persistent surname was present in the census years, and the

persistent surnames are numbered sequentially in these boxes by the order in which they

first appeared in the censuses. A stippled box signifies the occasions on which a

persistent surname appeared in subsequent censuses. The houses were not numbered

consistently by the census enumerators, and it is not possible therefore to identify with

confidence the same house over different censuses. (* denotes an illegible word in the

census schedule.)

The data in these Appendices have been used in the mapping of families in Figure 38.

302

Appendix 21

Household Heads and Persistent Surnames of Long Close Lane [1]

Bilsond Gardener Whitingstone Pauper charwoman Calpin - 18 Ag Lab Wells - 21

Dalby Coach Lace Weaver French Glass Cutter Caveny Farm work Copley - 12 Printer

Kirk MacDonald Stone Moulder Johnson Joiner Strangeway - 22 Jobbing Smith

Kirby Linen weaver Giles Whitesmith Johnson Glass blower Coughlin Foundry lab

Passmake Shoe maker Vause Joiner Debnam Confectioner Cowling - 34 Tailor

Page Ag Lab Milner Iron turner Welsh Ag Lab Bomans *

Reed Glass blower Smith - 1 Publican Calpin - 18 Ag Lab Redpath - 23 Wood turner

Haddlesay Ag Lab Jackson Pauper Charwoman Padden Bricklayer Lab Taylor - 35 Farmers lab

Bowland Linen weaver Gibson - 9 Coach Lace Weaver Walder Bricklayer Lab Sanderson - 24 Tailor

Bellis Ind Watkinson - 8 Upholstress Musgrave Washerwoman McNulty

Selby Blacksmith Dixon Hawkers wife Byers - 11 Glass Blower Swift Foundry Lab

Littlewood Waterman Price - 5 Glass cutter Creely Pauper surveyor wife Kelly - 20 Ag Lab

Reed Washerwoman Ward - 10 Sarjeant west yorks militia Saylor Tan yard labourer Mcdonald - 19 Moulder & publican

Snell Ag Lab Byers - 11 Glass maker Beal Coal dealer Olley

Smith - 1 Book keeper Buckle - 3 Bricklayer Hurworth Groom Pullan Dressmaker

Howard Linen weaver Mooney Glass maker Betchette Plaster figure maker Riley - 36 Police Constable

Meara Coach maker Brownbridge Proprietor of houses Betchette Glass bottle maker Preetvies Shoe maker

Filon Bricklayer Copley - 12 Painter Jewitt Charwoman Ward - 10

Sturdy - 2 Joiner Aniol *Fire man (Glass works) Nahry Ag Lab Kelly - 20 Green grocer

Simpson U.S. Willison Joiner Logans Dunnell Pensioner *

Harrison Tailor Kurn Laundress Dent Stone mason Fannon - 37 Railway labourer

Richardson Chairman *Scoville Glass maker Duggan - 17 Ag Lab Byrne Plasterer

Wood U.S. Sunderland - 13 Glass maker Mcdonald - 19 Ag Lab Odonnell Glass works lab

Buckle - 3 Bricklayer Collins Glass maker Conner Fortune teller Sikes Clerk

Shepherd Rope maker Craven - 7 Seamstress Kirby Tailor Calpin - 18 Ag Lab

Waters Shoe maker Robertson Travellers wife Agar Carpenter Thorpe Shoe maker

Bowland Hunter Glass cutter Gibson - 9 Iron moulder Rowan - 38 Ag Lab

Bland Carpenter Wright Painter Benson Iron moulder Falkeney - 31 Seamstress

Pilkington - 4 Glass cutter Ryan - 6 Glass maker Ogan Ag Lab Wilson - 26 Ag Lab

Kelly Glass blower Pilkington - 4 Glass cutter Kelly - 20 Galcier Carr Gardener labourer

Price - 5 Glass cutter Foster Wells - 21 Brush maker Bowley Ag Lab

Ryan - 6 Glass maker Sturdy - 2 Smith Copley - 12 Printer Murray - 39 Brick lab

Morley Linen weaver Foster Proprietor of houses Strangeway - 22 Whitesmith Jordan - 30 Field lab

Craven - 7 Independent Bagley Police Constable Hume Glass blower Austria Labourer

Johnson Joiner Clarkson Gardener Cattle Smith Striker Maloney Brick labourer

Neville Glass maker Keach Engineer Buckle - 3 Bricklayer Kennedy - 32 Ag Lab

Watkinson - 8 Bricklayer Dixon Tailor Gledhill Brewer Lamb - 40 Field lab

Calligan Glass maker Robinson - 14 Formerly house servant Ridpath - 23 Wood turner Rutledge

Duce Joiner Briggs Cabinet maker Knox Glass blower Langan - 28 Ag lab

Kenwright Glass maker Durkin Passmore Charwoman Galagher

Hannon Chelsea Pensioner Sanderson - 24 Tailor Butler - 27 Ag lab

Sykes *Glass maker Loftus - 15 Bricklayer lab Durken - 41 Railway lab

Dwyer Tailor Molang Bricklayer lab Byley Brick lab

Thompson Ag Lab Robinson - 14 Foundry Lab Simpson Ag lab

Leyden Ag Lab Brown - 25 Publican Morris - 16 Ag lab

Wear Ag Lab Laycock Railway fitter Calpin - 18 Ag lab

Wynn Charwoman Cass Sawyer Galagher Ag lab

Mollody Ag Lab Potter Fitters lab Brannen - 33 Ag lab

Birk Charwoman Ward - 10 House proprietor Doherty Plasterers lab

Diamond Domestic housekeeper Wilson - 26 Ag Lab Kerigan* Ag lab

MacAndrew Ag Lab Lynch Ag Lab Robinson - 14 Foundry lab

Brannon Ag Lab Butler - 27 Gravel pits lab Kirk Laundress

Diamond Rowley Gravel Pit lab Harrison - 42 Coal dealer

Lofthouse - 15 Ag Lab Lister Gravel Pit Lab Lee

Sago Fieldster* Mcdonald - 19 Ag Lab Brown - 25 Glass works lab

Noon Ag Lab Rafter Ag Lab Grantham Brewers lab

Flanally Ag Lab Gologher Ag Lab Green Railway lab

Brannen Ag Lab Flinn Ag Lab Vause Shoe maker

Conway Ag Lab Cox Foundry lab Lavelle Brick lab

Brannan Bricklayers labourer Hines Charwoman Fimbin Ag lab

Morris - 16 Ag Lab Hensgen Ag Lab Casey - 29 Brick lab

Brannon Davies Bricklayers lab Dygnin - 43 Ag lab

Dugan - 17 Ag Lab Langan - 28 Ag Lab McDonald - 19 Gardener lab

Mellody Ag Lab Welsh Ag Lab Starkie Pensioner *

Casey - 29 Bricklayers lab Smith - 44 Bricklayer

Jordan -30 Ag Lab Ryan Glass blower

Sunderland - 13 Charwoman Smith - 44 Bricklayer

Lazenby Charwoman Garland Bricklayer

Harwood Rumans Railway lab

Welsh Ag Lab Perry Dress maker

Igo Musician/Fiddler Thompson - 45 Confectioner

Igo Ag Lab

Hanen Bricklayer Lab

Falkeny - 31 Ag Lab

Kennedy - 32 Ag Lab

Dunnegan Bricklayer lab

Morris - 16 Ag Lab

Morris - 16 Farm work

Halland Ag Lab

Morris - 16 Ag Lab

Brennan - 33 Ag Lab

Foy Ag lab

Calpin - 18 Gravel pit lab

Henigan Gravel pit lab


New PSs 9 to 17 = 9

New PSs 1 to 8 = 8 PSs 1 to 8 present > 20 years = 1 PSs 1 to 8 present > 30 years = 0


Total PSs = 17; Total IFs = 58Total IFs = 40


New PSs 18 to 33 = 16




New PSs 34 to 45 = 12


303

Household Heads and Persistent Surnames of Long Close Lane [2]

Brown - 25 Ag lab Constable Combworker Burke

Little Comb maker Knavsey Bricklayers labourer Rafter Glass bottle maker

McKegg Ag Farm work McAlone - 54 Publican England Labourer York Corporation

Rafftery Ag lab Duffield Mailcart driver Brannon - 33 Bricklayers labourer

Hope Coal dealer Calvert Carter & shopkeeper Fairbairn Bricklayers labourer

Allan Fitters lab Leadley - 50 Gas fitter McGuire General labourer

Henigan - 46 Bricklayers lab Redpath - 23 Glass blower McAlone - 54 Innkeeper pub

McIntyre Bricklayer lab Judson - 55 Joiner Fox Tailor

Calpin - 18 Ag lab Bagnall - 56 Iron moulder Newton Grinder Cutlery

Gologher Ag lab Igoe Bricklayers labourer Wilson Railway labourer

Morris - 16 Ag lab Strangeway - 22 Whitesmith Bissell Hawker

Kelly - 20 Bricklayers lab Jackson General labourer Harrison - 42 Bricklayers labourer

Riley - 36 Bricklayers lab Walsh - 57 Labourer Leadley - 50 Gas fitter

Durken - 41 Ag Lab Kerney General labourer Judson - 55 Railway joiner

Butler - 27 Ag lab Lunlin Dairyman Bagnall - 56 Iron moulder

Calpin - 18 Ag lab Lavelle Bricklayers labourer Bean Glass bottle maker

Calpin - 18 Ag lab Dignew - 58 Railway guard Empson Bricklayers labourer

Fannon - 37 Fitters lab McDonald - 19 Cawley Bricklayers labourer

Broadbent Foundry lab Dalton - 51 Charwoman Walsh - 57 Bricklayers labourer

Rowley Ag lab Hawksby - 49 Gardener Kenny Dairier

Gologher Ag lab Thompson - 45 Labourer Corcoran Living on own means

Lamb - 40 Railway lab Mellor - 52 Glass bottle finisher Tovelle Builders labourer

Harrison - 42 Ag lab Dale - 53 Glass blower Dignon - 58 Railway passenger guard

Duggan Pudler iron Judson - 55 Railway engine driver Thompson - 45 Railway bricklayer

Kennedy - 32 Glass works lab Taylor - 35 Engine fitter Loftus - 61 Bricklayers labourer

Kelly - 20 Scavinger Martindale - 59 House painter Wainman Cabinet maker

Jordan - 30 Ag lab farm work Parkinson Grocer Thompson - 45 Labourer (Timber yard)

Murray - 39 Mason lab Gallagher - 60 Labourer in fields Mellor - 52

White - 47 Provision dealer Murray - 39 Charwoman Dale - 53 Glass maker

Kelly - 20 Bricklayer lab Leach Bootmaker Judson - 55 ?Turner timber yard

Calpin - 18 Ag lab Calpin - 18 Labourer brickyard Taylor - 35 Railway signal fitter

Rowan - 38 Ag lab Calpin - 18 Farm labourer Martindale - 59 Charwoman

Flinn - 48 Ag lab Durkin - 41 Corpration labourer Boldison - 62 Tin Plate Worker

Fenwick Smiths lab Riley - 36 Bricklayers labourer Carty Farm labourer

Caufield Tailor Riley - 36 Bricklayers labourer Turner Labourer confectionery works

Bailey Watch maker Loftus - 61 White - 47 Living on own means

Joy Coach trimmer Hennigan - 46 Railway labourer Brammer Cok dining hall railway

McDonald - 19 Greenwood Railway sack warehouse Wilson Provision & Coal Dealer

Brannon - 33 Bricklayers lab Dale - 53 Combmaker Robertson Cattle dealers assistant

McGough Bricklayers lab Guest Hawker Murray - 39

Calpin - 18 Ag lab Flannigan Farm labourer Rowan - 38 Farm labourer

Sykes Coal agent White - 47 Stonemason labourer Richardson House painter

Hawksby - 49 Ag lab Gallagher - 60 Labourer Connaghton Bricklayers labourer

Kelly - 20 Wells - 21 Painters labourer Nolan Labourer flour mill

Collins White smith Battle Brickyard labourer Hennigan - 46 Bricklayers labourer

Hogan Ag farm work Giles Furniture dealer Flynn - 48 Labourer flour mill

Wells - 21 Brush maker Rushman Laundress Banks

Carter Tailor Gainley Bricklayers labourer Calpin - 18 Agricultural labourer

Strangeway - 22 Jobbing smith Brannon - 33 Bricklayers labourer Calpin - 18 Farm labourer

Empson Foundry lab Faulkney Rope maker Durkin - 41 Labourer York Corporation

Cauglin Bricklayers lab Obrian Hawker Riley - 36 Builders labourer

Cowling - 34 Tailor Shepherd Laundry maid Riley - 36 Bricklayers labourer

Leadley - 50 Gass fitter Saddler Charwoman Proctor Charwoman

Redpath - 23 Wood turner Harrison - 42 General labourer Gollagher - 60 Farm labourer

Potter Iron driller lab Bolderson - 62 Joiner Foy Field worker

Webster Shop keeper Chapman Iron moulder Walls

Garnett Glass works lab Dwyers Labourer Loftus - 61 Plasterers labourer

Kneasby Bricklayers lab White - 47 Lives on own means Heningan - 46 Bricklayers labourer

Murray - 39 Bricklayers lab Flynn - 48 Charwoman Oglesby Coal merchant

Reid Comb maker Rowan - 38 General labourer Thompson - 45 Railway porter

Smith - 44 Bricklayer Kennedy - 32 General labourer Calpin - 18 Bricklayers labourer

Barwick Painter Brannan - 33 General labourer Powell Railway labourer

Wilkinson Corporation Road Lab Gallager - 60 Ogram Bargeman

Sullivan Bricklayers lab Bell Wheelwright De Laney Field worker

Hart Ag lab Cartwright General labourer Fawcett Labourer cocoa works

Tose Ag farm work Oxtoby House painter McNichol General labourer

Cosgrove Bricklayers lab Hardy Chimney sweep

Rowan - 38 Bricklayers lab Milne Labourer Brickyard

Kenny Corporation lab roads Allen Army reserve (Farm labourer)

Simlin Bricklayers lab Calpin - 18 Yard man in farm

Casey - 29 Bricklayers lab Matchett Porter post office

Dygnin - 43 Dalton - 51 Charwoman

McDonald - 19 Ag lab Dillon General labourer

Culken Bricklayers lab Gill None

Dalton - 51 Iron dresser Hopper General carter

Bean Glass maker

Smith - 44 Blacksmith

Mellor - 52 Glass blower

Key Bricklayer

Dale - 53 Compositor Printer

Taylor - 35 Engine fitter

Thompson - 45 Confectioner



1901 Census




Total IFs = 65


1891 Census







1881 Census






Total PSs = 33; Total IFs = 70 Total PSs = 31; Total IFs = 58

304

Appendix 22: Persistent Family Plots of Swaledale [1]

Rutter Family

1st Gen 2nd Gen 3rd Gen DoB PoB

RUTTER

Ann 1781 Yorkshire Melbecks Own means

Ralph 1781 Yorkshire Melbecks Lead miner

Thomas 1802 Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner

Sipron 1815 Winterings Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner

Wife Margaret 1829 Wmland Appleby Melbecks Farmer Melbecks Farmer

Cyprian 1860 Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner & Farmer

Nanny 1782 Smarber Melbecks Retired

Jane 1786 Grinton Melbecks Own means Melbecks Lead miner's widow

William 1812 Gunnerside Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner

Wife Elizabeth 1812 Gunnerside Melbecks Farmer

John 1840 Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Pauper

William 1840 Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner & Farmer Melbecks Lead miner & Farmer

Thomas 1842 Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner

George 1850 Gunnerside Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Grocer, Postmaster & Draper

Thomas 1822 Gunnerside Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Farmer Melbecks Farmer

Robert 1861 Gunnerside Melbecks Shepherd & Farmer Melbecks Farmer

Ralph 1806 Winterings Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner

Wife Elizabeth 1802 Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner's widow Melbecks Lead miner's widow

William 1834 Gunnerside Melbecks Lead miner & Farmer

Thomas 1811 Lodge Green Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner

John 1817 Winterings Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner

Wife Nancy 1816 Gunnerside Melbecks Farmer

Ralph 1842 Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner

Richard 1850 Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner & Farmer Melbecks Lead miner & Grocer

Anthony 1852 Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Game watcher & Farmer Melbecks Game watcher & Farmer

John Hilton 1854 Gunnerside Melbecks Lead miner & Farmer Melbecks Lead miner

Thomas 1855 Gunnerside Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner

John 1868 Melbecks Melbecks Lead miner & Farmer

19011841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891

305

Persistent Family Plots of Swaledale [2]

Scott Family


SCOTT

John 1758 Yorkshire Melbecks Retired farmer

John 1796 Keld Muker Farmer Muker Landowner & Farmer

Wife Jane 1801 Keld Muker Landowner Muker Landowner & Farmer Muker Landowner

Richard A 1831 Muker Muker Shepherd Muker Farmer Muker Farmer Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

Christopher Alderson 1831 Muker Park House Muker Farmer Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

John 1876 Muker Muker Farmer

Christopher 1878 Muker Muker Stockman

Anthony Alderson 1839 Muker Muker Farmer Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

George 1845 Muker Park House Muker Farmer Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

John 1874 Muker Muker Farmer

Ralph 1799 Muker Muker Farm labourer

Ralph 1801 Yorkshire Muker Farmer

Miles 1803 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Farmer

Charles 1806 Muker Muker Farmer Muker Farm labourer Muker Farm labourer

Wife Margery 1814 Durham Harwood Muker Widow

John 1843 Muker Muker Shepherd

Elizabeth 1808 Azenby Arkengarthdale Draper Arkengarthdale Draper

Christopher 1808 Muker Muker Farm labourer Muker Landowner & Farmer Muker Retired Farmer Muker Retired Farmer

Nanny 1832 Muker Muker Living on own means

Christopher 1811 Yorkshire Muker Farmer

George 1811 Keld Muker Farmer Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

William 1811 Yorkshire Reeth Lead miner

Wife Jane 1813 Booze Reeth Lead miner's widow Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer

William 1842 Fremington Reeth Farmer Arkengarthdale Lead miner

Christopher 1813 Grinton Reeth Retired greengrocer

James 1818 Arkendale Arkengarthdale Farmer

Wife Elizabeth 1807 Westm Kirby Arkengarthdale Landowner

Miles 1828 Arkengarthdale Arkengarthdale Slate quarry labourer Arkengarthdale Lead miner

James 1854 Arkengarthdale Arkengarthdale Coal miner Arkengarthdale Lead miner Arkengarthdale Lead miner

James 1833 Arkengarthdale Arkengarthdale Farmer Arkengarthdale Farmer

Christopher 1818 Grinton Reeth Farm labourer Reeth Labourer Reeth Grocer

Charles 1818 Grinton Reeth Road labourer & Farmer

1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

306


Binks, Percival and Reynoldson Families


BINKS

John 1801 Reeth Reeth Retired farmer

James 1816 Yorkshire Reeth Farmer

Mary 1818 Burniston Reeth Farmer

Ann 1849 Marske Reeth Charwoman Reeth Laundress

Matthew 1872 Reeth Reeth Bootmaker & clogger

John 1831 Richmond Reeth Butcher

Thomas Coates 1841 Wmland Brough Reeth Draper Reeth Draper Reeth Farmer

Richard 1852 Marske Reeth Farmer Arkengarthdale Farmer

19011841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891


PERCIVAL

James 1826 Wurton Melbecks Corn dealer Melbecks Grocer

Wife Mary Ann 1832 Melbecks Melbecks Grocer & Miller Melbecks Grocer & Farmer Melbecks Grocer & Flour dealer Melbecks Own means

Thomas 1858 Grinton Reeth Miller & Farmer Reeth Innkeeper

Lodge 1860 Melbecks Melbecks Grocer's assistant Melbecks Grocer & Farmer

James 1862 Melbecks Reeth Corn miller & Farmer Reeth Teamster

Henry 1836 Worton Aysgarth Reeth Corn Miller

1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901


REYNOLDSON

John 1776 Yorkshire Muker Own means

George 1791 Yorkshire Melbecks Lead miner

John 1829 Gunnerside Melbecks Farmer

Joseph 1834 Melbecks Melbecks Farm labourer Muker Landowner & Farmer

Philis 1797 Yorkshire Muker Innkeeper

John 1823 Muker Muker Lead miner & Farmer Muker Carrier & Farmer Muker Butter collector & Farmer Muker Butter collector & Farmer

Wife Mary Ann 1827 Muker Muker Farmer Muker Own means

Edward 1851 Muker Muker Farmer

John W 1864 Muker Muker Gamekeeper

John Guy 1872 Muker Muker Farmer

John 1806 Yorkshire Melbecks Lead miner

Thomas 1833 Lodge Green Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner

George 1826 Lodge Green Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Innkeeper & Lead miner Reeth Lead miner Melbecks Retired lead miner

Wife Hannah 1823 Reeth Melbecks Retired innkeeper

Simon/Thomas Cherry 1857 Gunnerside Melbecks Lead miner

Isabella 1838 Gunnerside Melbecks Innkeeper Melbecks Grocer Melbecks Own means

John 1848 Melbecks Melbecks Lead mine agent Reeth Relieving officer

19011841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891

307


Wallis, Appleton, Dougill, Highmoor, Parrington and Thornborrow Families


WALLIS

Robert 1815 Yks Mickleton Reeth Farmer

Wife Elizabeth 1815 Yks Baldersdale Reeth Cottager Reeth Farm labourer

John 1841 Durham Romaldkirk Reeth Shepherd Reeth Farmer

Rachel 1871 Hurst Reeth Housekeeper

Mary Jane 1866 Yks New Forest Reeth Lodging house keeper

1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901


APPLETON

John 1832 Grinton Melbecks Lead miner Melbecks Lead miner Reeth Farmer Reeth Farmer

George 1857 Low Row Melbecks Farmer Melbecks Farmer

William 1864 Melbecks Reeth Farmer

19011841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891


DOUGILL

Simon 1821 Yks Pateley Bridge Melbecks Stonemason Melbecks Stonemason Melbecks Builder & Stonemason Melbecks Builder Melbecks Stonemason Melbecks Stonemason & Builder

George 1849 Melbecks Melbecks Stonemason

George 1823 Yks Pateley Bridge Melbecks Carpenter Melbecks Joiner Melbecks Joiner & Builder Melbecks Joiner Melbecks Joiner & Carpenter

1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901


HIGHMOOR

Charles 1841 Wmland Musgrave Arkengarthdale Farmer Arkengarthdale Farmer

Thomas 1883 Reeth Arkengarthdale Farmer's son

19011841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891


PARRINGTON

Richard 1840 Yks Muker or Dent Muker Innkeeper, Shoemaker & Farmer Muker Innkeeper, Shoemaker & Farmer Muker Innkeeper, Shoemaker & Farmer Muker Innkeeper

James 1857 Yks Dent Muker Bootmaker Muker Shoemaker Muker Shoemaker

1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901


THORNBORROW

Robert 1854 Wmland Stainmore Muker Farm labourer Muker Farmer Muker Farmer

James 1878 Yks Muker Muker Farmer

19011841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891

308

Bibliography

Primary Sources: printed

R. Calpin, The Calpins of York: The First 60 Years (Undated).

Central Relief Committee of the Society of Friends, Transactions of the Central Relief

Committee of the Society of Friends during the famine in Ireland, in 1846 and 1847 (Dublin,

1852).

Directory for 1881 – 1882 of the City of York (London).

L.N. Horton (ed.), The Character of the Country: The Iowa Diary of James L. Broderick,

1876–1877 (Iowa, 1976).

Kelly’s Directory of the North and East Ridings of Yorkshire with the City of York 1897

(London).

Slum clearance map of George Street and Walmgate area of York, dated 1913 and formerly

held at York City Archives.

Daily Mail, 24.3.2014: ‘Band of ten brothers’.

Ordnance Survey maps of Holgate and Walmgate, supplied courtesy of https://www.old-

maps.co.uk.

Ordnance Survey maps of Swaledale, supplied courtesy of Centre for English Local History,

University of Leicester.

J. Wolffe (ed.), Yorkshire Returns of the 1851 Census of Religious Worship. Volume 1:

Introduction, City of York and East Riding (York University, 2000).

J.M. Wilson (ed.), Imperial Gazetteer of England and Wales (London,1870 - 1872).

Primary Sources: not in print

Monetary values derived from: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation-

calculator.

The enclosure award map for Bolton Percy hangs in All Saints Church, Bolton Percy.

The enclosure awards for Bolton Percy and Poppleton held at the Borthwick Institute for

Historical Research, University of York: PR. BP100 & PR. Pop 1.

https://www.old-maps.co.uk/

https://www.old-maps.co.uk/

309

Details of all individuals in decennial censuses between 1841 and 1901 have been taken from

https://www.ancestry.co.uk, and from CDs of Yorkshire Censuses 1841 to 1901 published by

S&N British Data Archive Ltd.

The British 19th Century Surname Atlas (Archer Software, 2003).

Memorial transcriptions transcribed by members of the City of York and District Family

History Society: CDs of YDFHS Monumental Inscriptions of Bolton Percy All Saints

Church 2009 and Appleton Roebuck All Saints 2008, and Microfiches of YDFHS Memorial

Inscriptions of St Everilda’s Nether Poppleton and All Saints Upper Poppleton.

CD of memorial inscriptions of Swaledale churchyards transcribed by members of the

Cleveland, North Yorkshire and South Durham Family History Society in the 1970s to the

1990s.

National Archives National Farm Survey 1941: Bolton Percy MAF32/1117/116; Appleton

Roebuck MAF32/1112/107; Upper Poppleton MAF32/1166/150; Nether Poppleton

MAF32/1149/137.

North Yorkshire C.R.O., Swaledale Manor records ZA.

Letters written by Jabus Raisbeck of Reeth, Stationer, Printer and Correspondent for

Darlington & Stockton Times 1885-1905, held at Reeth Museum.

York Explore, Rate Books: Holgate 1876-1900, Ref no. PLU/9/1/16.

York Explore, Board of Guardians minute books: York Poor Law Union and Workhouse

records May 1846-Oct 1847, Ref no. PLU/1/1/1/6

Figure 5. Painting of All Saints Church, Bolton Percy, attributed to Gilbert Foster (1855-

1906); all efforts to trace its current existence or whereabouts have failed.

Figure 26. Terraced railway housing including St Paul’s Terrace and Railway Terrace in the

1950s: ImagineYork y9 den 6259.

Figure 27. Back yards of railway housing in the Holgate area of York in the 1950s: York

City Archives image no. 6450.

Figure 28. Entrance to Mount Terrace from Holgate Road in 1922: ImagineYork y9 sou 241.

Figure 37. Long Close Lane in the early twentieth century: ImagineYork 157_a2_06

Figure 70. Ruins of the Old Gang Smelt Mill, Melbecks Moor: Photograph courtesy of

Masham Photographic Club.

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/

310

Parliamentary Papers

Third Report of the Commissioners for inquiring into the condition of the poorer classes in

Ireland 1836.

First Report of the Commissioners for inquiring into the state of large towns and populous

districts 1844; Report on the sanatory condition of the City of York, by Thos Laycock, M.D.

Bill to make temporary provision for treatment of destitute persons afflicted with fever in

Ireland, 1846.

Fourth Report from The Select Committee on Settlement, and Poor Removal; together with

the Minutes of Evidence taken before them 1847.

Secondary Sources

Books

R.C. Allen, Enclosure and the Yeoman: The Agricultural Development of the South Midlands

1450 – 1850 (Oxford, 1992).

G. Alter, ‘Theories of fertility decline: a non-specialist’s guide to the current debate’, in J.

Gillis, L. Tilly and D. Levine (eds), The European Experience of Declining Fertility, 1850 –

1970 (Oxford, 1992).

M. Anderson, Family Structure in Nineteenth Century Lancashire (Cambridge, 1971).

M. Anderson, ‘Indicators of population change and stability in nineteenth-century cities:

some sceptical comments’, in J.H. Johnson and C.G. Pooley (eds), The Structure of

Nineteenth Century Cities (London, 1982).

M. Anderson, ‘The social implications of demographic change’, in F.M.L. Thompson (ed.),

The Cambridge Social History of Britain, 1750 – 1950: Volume 2. People and their

Environment (Cambridge, 1990).

A. Armstrong, Stability and Change in an English County Town: A social study of York

1801-51 (Cambridge, 1974).

T. Armstrong, Adam Brunskill (London, 1952).

311

W.A. Armstrong, ‘A note on the household structure of mid-nineteenth-century York in

comparative perspective’, in P. Laslett and R. Wall (eds), Household and Family in Past

Time (Cambridge, 1972).

P. Aslett et al, Victorians on the Move: Research in the Census Enumerators’ Books 1851 –

1881 (Thornborough, 1984).

A. August, The British Working Class, 1832 – 1940 (Harlow, 2007).

P.S. Bagwell, The History of the National Union of Railwaymen (London, 1963).

D.E. Baines, Migration in a Mature Economy: Emigration and Internal Migration in

England and Wales, 1861 – 1900 (Cambridge, 1986).

J.A. Banks, ‘The contagion of numbers’, in H.J. Dyos and M. Wolff (eds), The Victorian

City: Images and Realities, volume 1 (London, 1973).

P. Batman, Four Faces: The Batman Family of York (York, 2014).

M. Batty, Gunnerside Chapel and Gunnerside Folk, Reeth Museum.

P. Bebb, Georgian Poppleton (1714-1830) (York, 1994).

J. Belchem, ‘Class, creed and country: the Irish middle class in Victorian Liverpool’, in R.

Swift and S. Gilley (eds), The Irish in Victorian Britain: The Local Dimension (Dublin,

1999).

C. Bell and H. Newby (eds), The Sociology of Community: A Selection of Readings

(Abingdon, 1974).

C. Bell and H. Newby, Community Studies (1971, London, 1975).

E. Bogg, Lower Wharfeland: The Old City of York and the Ainsty, the Region of Historic

Memories (York, 1904).

E. Bogg, Richmondshire: An Account of its History and Antiquities, Characters and Customs,

Legendary Lore, and Natural History (Leeds, 1908).

C. Booth, Life and Labour of the People of London (London, 17 volumes, 1889-1903).

312

E. Bott, Family and Social Network: Roles, Norms, and External Relationships in Ordinary

Urban Families (1957, London, 1971).

P. Brears, ‘York and the gentry: The York season and the country house’, in E. White (ed.),

Feeding a City: York. The Provision of Food from Roman Times to the Beginning of the

Twentieth Century (Totnes, 2000).

A. Briggs, Social Thought and Social Action: A Study of the Work of Seebohm Rowntree

1871 – 1954 (London, 1961).

S.A. Broadbridge, ‘The sources of railway share capital’, in M.C. Reed, Railways in the

Victorian Economy: Studies in Finance and Economic Growth (New York, 1968).

F.W. Brooks, ‘Victorian and later York’, in A. Stacpoole (ed.), The Noble City of York (York,

1972).

J. Browne, Charles Darwin: Volumes I and II of a Biography (London, 2003).

P. Buckland and J. Belchem (eds), The Irish in British Labour History (Liverpool, 1993).

J. Bullman, N. Hegarty and B. Hill, The Secret History of Our Streets: A Story of London

(2012, London, 2013).

J. Burnett, A Social History of Housing 1815 – 1985 (London, 1986).

M. Chase, ‘The Teeside Irish in the nineteenth century’, in P. Buckland and J. Belchem (eds),

The Irish in British Labour History (Liverpool, 1993).

P. Chrystal, The Rowntree Family of York: A Social History (Pickering, 2013).

P. Clark, ‘The migrant in Kentish towns 1580 – 1640’, in P. Clark and P. Slack (eds), Crisis

and Order in English Towns 1500 – 1700 (London, 1972).

E. Cooper, Muker: The Story of a Yorkshire Parish (Clapham, 1948).

L. Davidoff, M. Doolittle, J. Fink and K. Holden, The Family Story: Blood, Contract and

Intimacy, 1830-1960 (Harlow, 1999).

L. Davidoff, Thicker Than Water: Siblings and their Relations, 1780 – 1920 (Oxford, 2012).

313

R. Dennis, English Industrial Cities of the Nineteenth Century: A Social Geography

(Cambridge, 1984).

R. Dennis and S. Daniels, ‘Community and the social geography of Victorian cities’, in M.

Drake (ed.), Time, Family and Community. Perspectives on Family and Community History

(Oxford, 1994).

M. Drake, ‘Rates and Ratios’, in M. Drake and R. Finnegan (eds), Sources and Methods for

Family and Community Historians: A Handbook (Cambridge, 1994).

E. Driver, Memories of a Heritage: Memories of Brooklands Road Methodist Chapel,

Burnley (Burnley, 1982).

D.K. Drummond, Crewe: Railway Town, Company and People 1840 – 1914 (Aldershot,

1995).

H.J. Dyos and D.A. Reeder, ‘Slums and suburbs’, in H.J. Dyos and M. Wolff (eds), The

Victorian City: Images and Realities, volume 1 (London, 1973).

F. Engels, ‘The great towns’, in G. Bridge and S. Watson (eds), The Blackwell City Reader

(Chichester, 2010).

D. Englander, Landlord and Tenant in Urban Britain 1838 – 1918 (Oxford, 1983).

A. Everitt, The Pattern of Rural Dissent: the Nineteenth Century (Leicester, 1972).

D.E.C. Eversley, P. Laslett and E.A. Wrigley, An Introduction to English Historical

Demography: From the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century (London, 1966).

R. Fieldhouse and B. Jennings, A History of Richmond and Swaledale (1978, Chichester,

2005).

M.G. Fife and P.J. Walls, The River Foss from Yearsley Village to York: Its History and

Natural History (York, 1973).

J. Finch, ‘Do families support each other more or less than in the past?’, in M. Drake (ed.),

Time, Family and Community. Perspectives on Family and Community History (Oxford,

1994).

314

F. Finnegan, Poverty and Prostitution: A Study of Victorian Prostitutes in York (Cambridge,

1979).

F. Finnegan, Poverty and Prejudice: A Study of Irish Immigrants in York 1840-1875 (Cork,

1982).

R. Firth (ed.), Two Studies of Kinship in London (London, 1956).

D. Fitzpatrick, ‘A peculiar tramping people: the Irish in Britain, 1801 – 1870’, in W.E.

Vaughan (ed.), A New History of Ireland (Oxford, 1989).

D. Fitzpatrick, ‘A curious middle place: the Irish in Britain, 1871 – 1921’, in R. Swift and S.

Gilley (eds), The Irish in Britain, 1815 – 1939 (London, 1989).

A. Fleming, Swaledale: Valley of the Wild River (Edinburgh, 1998).

C. Galley, The Demography of Early Modern Towns: York in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth

Centuries (Liverpool, 1998).

D. Garnett (ed.), The White/Garnett Letters (London, 1968).

J.A. Garrard, The English and Immigration, A Comparative Study of the Jewish Influx 1880-

1910 (Oxford, 1971).

E. Garrett, A. Reid, K. Schürer and S. Szreter, Changing Family Size in England and Wales:

Place, Class and Demography, 1891 – 1911 (Cambridge, 2001).

S.M. Gaskell (ed.), Slums (Leicester, 1990).

A.D. Gilbert, Religion and Society in Industrial England: Church, Chapel and Social

Change, 1740 – 1914 (London, 1976).

B.G. Glaser and A.L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory (New York, 1999).

G. Gordon and G. Nair, Public Lives: Women, Family and Society in Victorian Britain

(London, 2003).

T.R. Gourvish, Railways and the British Economy 1830 – 1914 (London, 1986).

D.R. Green and A.G. Parton, ‘Slums and slum life in Victorian England: London and

Birmingham at mid-century’, in S.M. Gaskell (ed.), Slums (Leicester, 1990).

315

D.B. Grigg, ‘E.G. Ravenstein and the Laws of Migration’, in M. Drake (ed.), Time, Family

and Community. Perspectives on Family and Community History (Oxford, 1994).

C. Hallas, Rural Responses to Industrialization: The North Yorkshire Pennines 1790-1914

(Bern, 1999).

J. Harland, A Glossary of Words used in Swaledale, Yorkshire (London, 1873).

R-A Harris, The Nearest Place that wasn’t Ireland: Early Nineteenth Century Labour

Migration (Iowa, 1994).

M. Harrison, Four Ainsty Townships: The History of Bolton Percy, Appleton Roebuck, Colton

and Steeton 1066-1875 (York, 2000).

M. Hartley and J. Ingilby, Life and Tradition in the Yorkshire Dales (London, 1968).

M. Hartley and J. Ingilby, Dales Memories (Clapham, 1986).

J. Herson, ‘Migration, ‘community’ or integration? Irish families in Victorian Stafford’, in R.

Swift and S. Gilley (eds), The Irish in Victorian Britain: The Local Dimension (Dublin,

1999).

J.D. Herson, ‘Family history and memory in Irish immigrant families’, in K. Burrell and P.

Panayi (eds), Histories and Memories: Migrants and their History in Britain (London, 2006).

J. Herson, Divergent Paths: Family Histories of Irish Emigrants in Britain, 1820-1920

(Manchester, 2015).

D. Hey, The Grass Roots of English History: Local Societies in England before the Industrial

Revolution (London, 2016).

M.J. Hickman, ‘Alternative historiographies of the Irish in Britain: a critique of the

segregation/assimilation model’, in R. Swift and S. Gilley (eds), The Irish in Victorian

Britain: The Local Dimension (Dublin, 1999).

G. Hodgson, A Walk down Holgate Road: giving a glimpse of a Victorian Suburb (York,

1997).

316

G. Hodgson, A History of Holgate (in five parts): Part Four Nineteenth Century Holgate

(York, 1999).

W.G. Hoskins and L.D. Stamp, The Common Land of England and Wales (London, 1963).

A. Howkins, Reshaping Rural England: a Social History, 1850-1925 (London, 1991).

M. Huby, J. Bradshaw and A. Corden, A Study of Town Life: Living Standards in the City of

York 100 years after Rowntree (York, 1999).

C.J. Hunt, The Lead Miners of the Northern Pennines (Manchester, 1970).

A. Janssens, Family and Social Change: The Household as a Process in an Industrializing

Community (Cambridge, 1993).

J.H. Johnson and C.G. Pooley (eds), The Structure of Nineteenth Century Cities (London,

1982).

P. Joyce, Visions of the People: Industrial England and the Question of Class 1848-1914

(Cambridge, 1991).

J.R. Kellett, The Impact of Railways on Victorian Cities (London, 1969).

M. Kerr, The People of Ship Street (London, 1958).

P.W. Kingsford, Victorian Railwaymen: The Emergence and Growth of Railway Labour

1830-1870 (London, 1970).

C.B. Knight, A History of the City of York (York, 1944).

G.W. Lasker, ‘Evidence from surnames on the population structure of villages surrounding

the Otmoor’, in G.A. Harrison (ed.), The Human Biology of the English Village (Oxford,

1995).

G. Lasker, ‘Using surnames to analyse population structure’, in D. Postles (ed.), Naming,

Society and Regional Identity (Oxford, 2002).

P. Laslett, The World We Have Lost further explored (London 1965, 1994 reprint).

317

P. Laslett, ‘Misbeliefs about our ancestors: The absence of child marriage and extended

family households from the English past’ in The World We Have Lost further explored

(London 1965, 1994 reprint).

P. Laslett and R. Wall (eds), Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, 1972).

P. Laslett, ‘Clayworth and Cogenhoe’, in Family Life and Illicit Love in Earlier Generations

(Cambridge, 1977).

R. Lawton, ‘Rural depopulation in nineteenth century England’, in D.R. Mills (ed.), English

Rural Communities: the Impact of a Specialized Economy (London, 1973).

H. Lees, English Churchyard Memorials (Stroud, 2000).

L. Lees, Exiles of Erin: Irish Migrants in Victorian London (Manchester, 1987).

K.D. Lilley (ed.), The British Historic Towns Atlas, Volume V, York (York, 2015).

W.H. Long and G.M. Davies, Farm Life in a Yorkshire Dale (Clapham, 1948).

D.M. MacRaild and M.T. Smith, ‘Emigration and migration, 1600 – 1945’, in L. Kennedy

and P. Ollerenshaw (eds), Ulster Since 1600: Politics, Economy and Society (Oxford, 2013).

G. Marriott (ed.), Those Who Left the Dales (York, 2010).

C.G.N. Mascie-Taylor and G.W. Lasker, Biological Aspects of Human Migration

(Cambridge, 1989).

H. Mayhew, London Labour and the London Poor: A Cyclopaedia of the Conditions and

Earnings of Those That Will Work, Those That Cannot Work, and Those That Will Not Work

(1861-62, London, 1967).

A. Mayne, The Imagined Slum: Newspaper Representation in Three Cities, 1870 – 1914

(Leicester, 1993).

L.W. McBride (ed.), The Reynolds Letters: An Irish Emigrant Family in Late Victorian

Manchester (Cork, 1999).

F. McKenna, The Railway Workers 1840 – 1970 (London, 1980).

318

H. McLeod, Class and Religion in the Late Victorian City (London, 1974).

S. Meacham, A Life Apart: The English Working Class 1890-1914 (London, 1977).

G.E. Mingay, Enclosure and the Small Farmer in the Age of the Industrial Revolution

(London, 1968).

G. Mingay, ‘The rural slum’, in S.M. Gaskell (ed.), Slums (Leicester, 1990).

G.E. Mingay, Rural Life in Victorian England (Stroud, 1998).

L. Miskell, ‘Irish immigrants in Cornwall: the Camborne experience’ in R. Swift and S.

Gilley (eds), The Irish in Victorian Britain: The Local Dimension (Dublin, 1999).

R. Moore, Pit-men, Preachers and Politics: the Effects of Methodism in a Durham Mining

Community (Cambridge, 1974).

D. Morris, The Dalesmen of the Mississippi River (York, 1989).

J. Morris, The North Riding of Yorkshire (London, 1906).

R.J. Morris, Men, Women and Property in England, 1780 – 1870 (2005, Cambridge, 2008).

H. Murray, Opportunity of Leisure: The History of the York Railway Institute 1889 – 1989

(York, 1989).

H. Murray, ‘Rebirth and growth: Nineteenth-century York’, in E. White (ed.), Feeding a

City: York. The Provision of Food from Roman Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth

Century (Totnes, 2000).

H. Mytum, Recording and Analysing Graveyards (York, 2000).

F. Neal, ‘Irish settlement in the north-east and north-west of England in the mid-nineteenth

century’ in R. Swift and S. Gilley (eds), The Irish in Victorian Britain: The Local Dimension

(Dublin, 1999).

C. Nelson, Family Ties in Victorian England (Westport, 2007).

P. Nuttgens (ed.), The History of York: From Earliest Times to the Year 2000 (Pickering,

2001).

A. O’Dowd, Spalpeens and Tattie Hokers: History and Folklore of the Irish Migratory

Agricultural Worker in Ireland and Britain (Dublin, 1991).

319

C. Ó Gráda, The Great Irish Famine (Cambridge, 1995).

P. O’Leary (ed.), Irish Migrants in Modern Wales (Liverpool, 2004).

M. Pacione, Urban Geography (2001, London, 2009).

R. Parkinson, On the Present Condition of the Labouring Poor in Manchester (London,

1841).

T. Parsons, Sociological Theory and Modern Society (New York, 1967).

S.K. Phillips, ‘Natives and incomers: the symbolism of belonging in Muker parish, North

Yorkshire’, in A.P. Cohen (ed.), Symbolising boundaries: identity and diversity in British

cultures (Manchester, 1986).

A. Plakans, ‘Kinship’, in P.N. Stearns (ed.), Encyclopedia of European Social History from

1350 to 2000 (New York, 2001).

E. Pontefract, Swaledale (London, 1934).

C. Pooley and J. Turnbull, Migration and Mobility in Britain since the Eighteenth Century

(London, 1998).

C. Pooley, ‘Segregation or integration? The residential experience of the Irish in mid-

Victorian Britain’, in R. Swift and S. Gilley (eds), The Irish in Britain, 1815 – 1939 (London,

1989).

C.G. Pooley, ‘The role of migration in constructing regional identity’, in B. Lancaster, D.

Newton and N. Vall (eds), An Agenda for Regional History (Newcastle upon Tyne, 2007).

S. and D. Postles, ‘Surnames and stability: a detailed case study’, in D. Hooke and D. Postles

(eds), Names, Time and Place. Essays in Memory of Richard McKinley (Oxford, 2003).

M. Prior, Fisher Row: Fishermen, Bargemen, and Canal Boatmen in Oxford, 1500 – 1900

(Oxford, 1982).

A. Raistrick, Mines and Miners of Swaledale (Clapham, 1955).

A. Raistrick and B. Jennings, A History of Lead Mining in the Pennines (London, 1965).

S. Rankin and D. Thompson, York 100 1877-1977: The Story of a Station (York, 1977).

320

B. Reay, Microhistories: Demography, Society and Culture in Rural England, 1800-1930

(Cambridge, 1996).

G. Redmonds, T. King and D. Hey, Surnames, DNA, and Family History (Oxford, 2011).

A.D. Rees, Life in a Welsh Countryside: A Social Study of Llanfihangel yng Ngwynfa

(Cardiff, 1951).

E. Richards, ‘Malthus and the uses of British emigration’, in K. Fedorowich and A.S.

Thompson (eds), Empire, Migration and Identity in the British World (Manchester, 2013).

R. Roberts, The Classic Slum: Salford Life in the First Quarter of the Century (London,

1971).

J. Robin, Elmdon: Continuity and Change in a North-west Essex village 1861-1964

(Cambridge, 1980).

R. Rodger, Housing in Urban Britain, 1780-1914 (Cambridge, 1995).

J. Rowe, The Hard-Rock Men: Cornish Immigrants and the North American Mining Frontier

(Liverpool, 1974).

B.S. Rowntree, Poverty: A Study of Town Life (1901; Bristol, 2000).

S. Ruggles, Prolonged Connections: The Rise of the Extended Family in Nineteenth Century

England and America (Madison, 1987).

J. Saville, Rural Depopulation in England and Wales, 1851-1951 (London, 1957).

K. Schürer, ‘The role of the family in the process of migration’, in C.R. Pooley and I.D.

Whyte (eds), Migrants, Emigrants and Immigrants (Cambridge, 1991).

K. Schürer and D.R. Mills, ‘Population and demography’, in D. Mills and K. Schürer (eds),

Local Communities in the Victorian Census Enumerators’ Books (Oxford, 1996).

K. Schürer and D.R. Mills, ‘Migration and population turnover’, in D. Mills and K. Schürer

(eds), Local Communities in the Victorian Census Enumerators’ Books (Oxford, 1996).

321

K. Schürer, ‘Leaving home in England and Wales, 1850 – 1920’, in J. Lee, M. Oris and F.

van Poppel (eds), The Road to Independence: Leaving Home in Western and Eastern

Societies, 16th – 20th Centuries (Oxford, 2004).

P.P Schweitzer (ed.), Dividends of Kinship: Means and Uses of Social Relatedness (London,

2000).

P.R. Scofield, Peasant and Community in Medieval England, 1200-1500 (Basingstoke,

2003).

M. Segalen, Historical Anthropology of the Family (Cambridge, 1986).

W.K. and E.M. Sessions, The Tukes of York in the Seventeenth, Eighteenth and Nineteenth

Centuries (York, 1971).

B. Short, C. Watkins, W. Foot and P. Kinsman, The National Farm Survey, 1941-1943: State

Surveillance and the Countryside in England and Wales in the Second World War

(Wallingford Oxon, 1999).

J. Simmons, ‘The power of the railway’, in H.J. Dyos and M. Wolff (eds), The Victorian

City: Images and Realities, volume 1 (London, 1973).

J.E. Smith and J.E. Oeppen, ‘Estimating numbers of kin in historical England using

demographic microsimulation’, in D. Reher and R.S. Schofield (eds), Old and New Methods

in Historical Demography (Oxford, 1993).

K.E. Smith, ‘Nonconformists, the home and family life’, in R. Pope (ed.), T&T Clark

Companion to Nonconformity (London, 1969).

M. Smith, ‘The inference of genetic structure and the micro-evolutionary process from the

distribution and changing pattern of surnames’, in D. Postles (ed.), Naming, Society and

Regional Identity (Oxford, 2002).

M. Smith, ‘Isonymy analysis: The potential for application of quantitative analysis of

surname distributions to problems in historical research’, in M. Smith (ed.), Human Biology

and History (London, 2002).

K.D.M. Snell, Annals of the Labouring Poor: Social Change and Agrarian England, 1660 –

1900 (Cambridge, 1985).

322

K.D.M. Snell, Parish and Belonging: Community, Identity and Welfare in England and

Wales 1700 – 1950 (Cambridge, 2006).

K.D.M. Snell and P.S. Ell, Rival Jerusalems: The Geography of Victorian Religion (2000,

Cambridge, 2009).

K.D.M. Snell, Spirits of Community: English Senses of Belonging and Loss, 1750-2000

(London, 2016).

A. Somerville (ed.), Letters from Ireland during the Famine of 1847 (Dublin, 1994).

H. Speight, Romantic Richmondshire (London, 1897).

A. Stacpoole (ed.), The Noble City of York (York, 1972).

M. Strathern, After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century (Cambridge,

1992).

M. Strathern, Kinship at the Core: An Anthropology of Elmdon a Village in North-west Essex

in the Nineteen-sixties (Cambridge, 2009).

R. Swift and S. Gilley (eds), The Irish in the Victorian City (London, 1985).

R. Swift (ed.), Irish Migrants in Britain 1815 – 1914: A Documentary History (Cork, 2009).

R. Swift and S. Gilley (eds), The Irish in Britain, 1815 – 1939 (London, 1989).

R. Swift and S. Gilley (eds), The Irish in Victorian Britain: The Local Dimension (Dublin,

1999).

S. Szreter, Fertility, Class and Gender in Britain, 1860 – 1940 (1996, Cambridge, 2002).

N. Tadmor, Family and Friends in Eighteenth-Century England: Household, Kinship and

Patronage (Cambridge, 2000).

S. Tarlow, Bereavement and Commemoration: An Archaeology of Mortality (Oxford, 1999).

E.P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class 1780 – 1830 (London, 1963).

E.P. Thompson and E. Yoe (eds), The Unknown Mayhew: Selections from the Morning

Chronicle 1849 – 50 (London, 1973).

323

D. Thomson, ‘Welfare and the historians’, in L. Bonfield, R.M. Smith and K. Wrightson

(eds), The World We Have Gained (Oxford, 1986).

D. Thomson, ‘The welfare of the elderly in the past: a family or community responsibility?’,

in M. Pelling and R.M. Smith (eds), Life, Death and the Elderly: Historical Perspectives

(London, 1991).

J. Turton, ‘Mayhew’s Irish: the Irish poor in mid-nineteenth-century London’, in R. Swift and

S. Gilley (eds), The Irish in Victorian Britain: The Local Dimension (Dublin, 1999).

N. Verdon, Rural Women Workers in Nineteenth Century England (Woodbridge, 2002).

R. Wall, ‘Work, welfare and the family: An illustration of the adaptive family economy’ in L.

Bonfield, R.M. Smith and K. Wrightson (eds), The World We Have Gained (Oxford, 1986).

R. Wall, ‘Real property, marriage and children: the evidence from four pre-industrial

communities’, in R.M. Smith (ed.), Land, Kinship and Life-Cycle (Cambridge, 2002).

J. Ward, Methodism in Swaledale and the Neighbourhood (Bingley,1865).

T.D. Whitaker, An History of Richmondshire (London, 1823).

M.B. White, ‘Family migration in Victorian Britain: the case of Grantham and Scunthorpe’,

in D. Mills and K. Schürer (eds), Local Communities in the Victorian Census Enumerators’

Books (Oxford, 1996).

I.D. Whyte, Migration and Society in Britain 1550 – 1830 (London, 2000).

A. Williams, Life in a Railway Factory (1915, London, 2012).

W.M. Williams, The Sociology of an English Village: Gosforth (London, 1956).

T. Williamson and L. Bellamy, Property and Landscape: A Social History of Land

Ownership and the English Countryside (London, 1987).

T. Williamson, Shaping Medieval Landscapes: Settlement, Society, Environment (Bollington,

2003).

V. Wilson, The Walmgate Story (2006, York, 2012).

V. Wilson, Rich in all but Money: Life in Hungate 1900 – 38 (York, 2007).

C. Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849 (London, 1962).

R. Woods, The Population of Britain in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1992).

324

E.A. Wrigley (ed.), Nineteenth-century Society: Essays in the Use of Quantitative Methods

for the Study of Social Data (Cambridge, 1972).

E.A. Wrigley, Population and History (1969, London, 1973).

E.A. Wrigley, ‘Men on the land and men in the countryside: employment in agriculture in

early-nineteenth-century England’, in L. Bonfield, R.M. Smith and K. Wrightson (eds), The

World We Have Gained (Oxford, 1986).

E.A. Wrigley and R.S. Schofield, The Population History of England 1541 – 1871. A

Reconstruction (Cambridge, 1989).

M. Yasumoto, The Rise of a Victorian Ironopolis: Middlesbrough and Regional

Industrialisation (Woodbridge, 2011).

M. Young and P. Wilmott, Family and Kinship in East London (London, 1957).

Journal Articles

P. Atkinson, ‘Family size and expectations about housing in the later nineteenth century:

three Yorkshire towns’, Local Population Studies, 87 (2011), pp. 13-28.

C. Bailey, ‘ “I’d heard it was such a grand place”: Mid-19th century internal migration to

London’, Family & Community History, 14 (2011), pp. 121-140.

L. Boothman, ‘Studying the stayers: Kinship and social status in Long Melford, Suffolk,

1661-1861’, Local Population Studies, 101 (2018), pp. 4-25.

A. Clark, ‘Family migration and infant mortality in rural Kent, 1876 – 1888’, Family &

Community History, 6 (2003), pp. 141-150.

M. Cohen, ‘Peasant differentiation and proto-industrialisation in the Ulster countryside:

Tullyish 1690-1825’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 17 (1990), pp. 413-432.

P.A. Connelly, ‘Flush with the past: An insight into late nineteenth-century Hungate and its

role in providing a better understanding of urban development’, International Journal of

Historical Archaeology, 15 (2011), pp. 607-616.

D.I. Cooper and M. Donald, ‘Households and “hidden” kin in early-nineteenth century

England: four case studies in Suburban Exeter, 1821-1861’, Continuity and Change, 10

(1995), pp. 257-278.

S.H. Cousens, ‘The regional pattern of emigration during the Great Irish Famine, 1846-51’,

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 28 (1960), pp. 119-134.

325

S.H. Cousens, ‘Regional death-rates in Ireland during the Great Famine’, Population Studies,

19 (1960), pp. 55-74.

S.H. Cousens, ‘The regional variation in emigration from Ireland between 1821 and 1841’,

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37 (1965), pp. 15-30.

C. Day and M. Smith, ‘Cousin marriage in south-western England in the nineteenth century’,

Journal of Biosocial Science, 45 (2013), pp. 405-414.

B. Deacon, ‘Reconstructing a regional migration system: net migration in Cornwall’, Local

Population Studies, 78 (2007), pp. 28-46.

T. Dillon, ‘The Irish in Leeds’, Thoresby Society, 16 (1974), pp. 1-28.

H.J. Dyos, ‘Railways and housing in Victorian London’, Journal of Transport History, 2

(1955), pp. 11-21.

C.J. Erickson, ‘Emigration from the British Isles to the U.S.A. in 1841: Part I. Emigration

from the British Isles’, Population Studies, 43 (1989), pp. 347-367.

C.J. Erickson, ‘Emigration from the British Isles to the U.S.A. in 1841: Part II. Who were the

English emigrants’, Population Studies, 44 (1990), pp. 21-40.

D. Friedlander and R.J. Roshier, ‘A study of internal migration in England and Wales: Part 1,


R. Gant, ‘Railway villages in south east Monmouthshire 1850-1965: a community

perspective’, Local Population Studies, 90 (2013), pp. 49-73.

G. Gordon and G. Nair, ‘The myth of the Victorian patriarchal family’, History of the Family,

7 (2002), pp. 125-138.

D.B. Grigg, ‘Ravenstein and the “laws of migration”’, Journal of Historical Geography, 3

(1977), pp. 41-54.

D.B. Grigg, ‘Farm size in England and Wales from early Victorian times to the present’, The

Agricultural History Review, 35 (1987), pp. 179-189.

C. Hallas, ‘Craft occupations in the late nineteenth century: Some local considerations’,

Local Population Studies, 44 (1990), pp. 22-28.

C.S. Hallas, ‘Migration in nineteenth-century Wensleydale and Swaledale’, Northern History,

27 (1991), pp. 139-161.

C.S. Hallas, ‘Yeomen and peasants? Landownership patterns in the North Yorkshire

Pennines, c. 1770 – 1900’, Rural History, 9 (1998), pp. 157-176.

326

C.S. Hallas, ‘Poverty and pragmatism in the northern uplands of England: the North

Yorkshire Pennines, c. 1770 – 1900’, Social History, 25 (2000), pp. 67-84.

D.G. Hey, ‘A dual economy in South Yorkshire’, The Agricultural History Review, 17

(1969), pp. 108-119.

D. Hey, ‘The local history of family names’, The Local Historian, 27 (1997), pp. i-xx.

A. Hinde, ‘The use of nineteenth-century census data to investigate local migration’, Local


G. Howells, ‘“For I was tired of England sir”: English pauper emigrant strategies, 1834 –

1860’, Social History, 23 (1998), pp. 181-194.

J.H. Johnson, ‘Harvest migration from nineteenth-century Ireland’, Transactions of the

Institute of British Geographers, 41 (1967), pp. 97-112.

S.A. King, ‘The English protoindustrial family: old and new perspectives’, History of the

Family, 8 (2003), pp. 21-43.

Küchemann, G.W. Lasker and D.I.Smith, ‘Historical changes in the coefficient or

relationship by isonymy among the populations of the Otmoor villages’, Human Biology, 51

(1979), pp. 63-77.

G.W. Lasker, ‘A coefficient of relationship by isonymy: a method for estimating the genetic

relationship between populations’, Human Biology, 49 (1977), pp. 489-493.

P. Laslett, ‘Family, kinship and collectivity as systems of support in pre-industrial Europe: a

consideration of the ‘nuclear-hardship’ hypothesis’, Continuity and Change, 3 (1988), pp.

153-175.

R. Lawton, ‘Mobility in nineteenth-century British cities’, Geographical Journal, 145 (1979),

pp. 206-224.

R. Lawton and C.G. Pooley, ‘The social geography of Merseyside in the nineteenth century’,

Historical Methods Newsletter, 7 (1974), pp. 276-284.

J.D. Marshall, ‘Why study regions?’, Journal of Regional and Local Studies, 5 (1985), pp.

15-27.

F. McKenna, ‘Victorian railway workers’, History Workshop, 1 (1976), pp. 26-73.

D. Maund, ‘Territory, core families and migration: a Herefordshire study’, The Local

Historian, 49 (2019), pp. 221-229.

A. and J. Mills, ‘Assessing the impact of famine, pestilence and the Scots on Swaledale and

the North Riding in the early fourteenth century’, The Local Historian, 48 (2018), pp. 301-

318.

327

R.J. Morris, ‘Family strategies and the built environment of Leeds in the 1830s and 1840s’,

Northern History, 37 (2000), pp. 193-214..

M. Murphy, ‘Changes in family and kinship networks consequent on the demographic

transitions in England and Wales’, Continuity and Change, 25 (2010), pp. 109-136.

A. O’Day, ‘A conundrum of Irish diasporic identity: Mutative ethnicity’, Immigrants &

Minorities, 27 (2009), pp. 317-339.

C. Ó Gráda, ‘Did Ireland ‘under’-industrialise?’, Irish Economic and Social History, 37

(2010), pp. 117-123.

S.K. Phillips, ‘Encoded in stone: neighbouring relationships and the organisation of stone

walls among Yorkshire Dales farmers’, Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford, 15

(1984), pp. 235-242.

C.G. Pooley, ‘Residential mobility in the Victorian city’, Transactions of the Institute of

British Geographers, 4 (1979), pp. 258-277.

C. Pooley, ‘How people moved: researching the experience of mobility in the past’, Local


W.T.R. Pryce, ‘A migration typology and some topics for the research agenda’, Family &

Community History, 3 (2000), pp. 65-80.

E.G. Ravenstein, ‘The laws of migration’, Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 48

(1885), pp. 167-227.

E.G. Ravenstein, ‘The laws of migration’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 52 (1889),

pp. 241-301.

C. Rawding, ‘The iconography of churches: a case study of landownership and power in

nineteenth-century Lincolnshire’, Journal of Historical Geography, 16 (1990), pp. 157-176.

B. Reay, ‘Kinship and the neighbourhood in nineteenth-century rural England: the myth of

the autonomous nuclear family’, Journal of Family History, 21 (1996), pp. 87-104.

J.H. Relethford, ‘Estimation of kinship and genetic distance from surnames’, Human Biology,

60 (1988), pp. 475-492.

J.H. Relethford and M.H. Crawford, ‘Anthropometric variation and the population history of

Ireland’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 96 (1995), pp. 25-38.

G. Revill, ‘”Railway Derby”: Occupational community, paternalism and corporate culture

1850-1881’, Urban History, 28 (2001), pp. 378-404.

J. Rimmer, ‘People and their buildings in the working-class neighbourhood of Hungate,

York’, International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 15 (2011), pp. 617-628.

328

M. Rothery, ‘Communities of kin and English landed gentry families of the nineteenth and

early twentieth centuries’, Family & Community History, 21 (2018), pp. 112-128.

K. Schürer, ‘Surnames and the search for regions’, Local Population Studies, 72 (2004), pp.

50-76.

K. Schürer, E.M. Garrett, H. Jaadla and A. Reid, ‘Household and family structure in England

and Wales, 1851 – 1911: continuities and change’, Continuity and Change, 33 (2018), pp.

365-411.

K. Schürer and J. Day, ‘Migration to London and the development of the north-south divide,

1851 – 1911’, Social History, 44 (2019), pp. 26-56.

L. Shaw-Taylor, ‘Labourers, cows, common rights and Parliamentary enclosure: the evidence

of contemporary comment c. 1760-1810’, Past and Present, 171(2001), pp. 95-126.

J.A. Sheppard, ‘The provenance of Brighton’s railway workers, 1841-61’, Local Population

Studies, 72 (2004), pp. 16-33.

D.S. Smith, ‘“All in some degree related to each other”: A demographic and comparative

resolution of the anomaly of New England kinship’, The American Historical Review, 94

(1989), pp. 44-79.

M.T. Smith and B.L. Hudson, ‘Isonymic relationships in the parish of Fylingdales, North

Yorkshire in 1851’, Annals of Human Biology, 11 (1984), pp. 141-148.

M.T. Smith, B.L. Smith and W.R. Williams, ‘Changing isonymic relationships in Fylingdales

parish, North Yorkshire, 1841 – 1881’, Annals of Human Biology, 11 (1984), pp. 449-457.

M.T. Smith and D.M. MacRaild, ‘Nineteenth-century population structure of Ireland and of

the Irish in England and Wales: an analysis by isonymy’, American Journal of Human

Biology, 21 (2009), pp. 283-289.

M.T. Smith and D.M. MacRaild, ‘The Irish in the mining industry in England and Wales:

evidence from the 1881 census’, Irish Economic and Social History, 36 (2009), pp. 37-62.

M. Smith and D.M. MacRaild, ‘The origins of the Irish in Northern England: an isonymic

analysis of data from the 1881 census’, Immigrants & Minorities, 27 (2009), pp. 152-177.

329

R.M. Smith, ‘Fertility, economy and household formation in England over three centuries’,

Population and Development Review, 7 (1981), pp. 595-622.

K.D.M. Snell and J. Millar, ‘Lone-parent families and the Welfare State: past and present’,

Continuity and Change, 2 (1987), pp. 387-422.

K.D.M. Snell, ‘English rural societies and geographic marital endogamy, 1700 – 1837’,

Economic History Review, 55 (2002), pp. 262-298.

K.D.M. Snell, ‘Gravestones, belonging and local attachment in England’, Past & Present,

179 (2003), pp. 97-134.

K.D.M. Snell and R. Jones, ‘Churchyard memorials: ‘Dispensing with God gradually’:

Rustication, decline of the Gothic and the emergence of Art Deco in the British Isles’, Rural

History, 29 (2018), pp. 45-80.

P.M. Solar and M.T. Smith, ‘Background migration: the Irish (and other strangers) in mid-

Victorian Hertfordshire’, Local Population Studies, 82 (2009), pp. 44-62.

D. Souden and G. Lasker, ‘Biological inter-relationships between parishes in East Kent: An

analysis of marriage duty act returns for 1705’, Local Population Studies, 21 (1978), pp. 30-

39.

N. Spencer and D.A. Gatley, ‘Investigating population mobility in mid-nineteenth-century

England and Wales’, Local Population Studies, 65 (2000), pp. 47-57.

N. Tadmor, ‘Early modern English kinship in the long run: reflections on continuity and

change’, Continuity and Change, 25 (2010), pp. 15-48.

M. Turner, ‘Distribution and persistence of surnames in a Yorkshire dale, 1500 – 1750’,

Local Population Studies, 54 (1995), pp. 28-39.

R. Wall, ‘Economic collaboration of family members within and beyond households in

English society, 1600 – 2000’, Continuity and Change, 25 (2010), pp. 83-108.

D. Ward, ‘Environs and neighbours in the “Two Nations” residential differentiation in mid-

nineteenth century Leeds’, Journal of Historical Geography, 6 (1980), pp. 133-162.

R. Watson, ‘A study of surname distribution in a group of Cambridgeshire parishes 1538 –

1840’, Local Population Studies, 15 (1975), pp. 23-32.

330

M. Winstanley, ‘Industrialization and the small farm: Family and household economy in

nineteenth-century Lancashire’, Past and Present, 152 (1996), pp. 157-195.

Z. Zhao, ‘The demographic transition in Victorian England in English kinship networks’,

Continuity and Change, 11 (1996), pp. 243-272.

Theses

J.A. Cheshire, ‘Population Structure and the Spatial Analysis of Surnames’ (unpub. PhD

thesis, UCL Department of Geography, 2011).

J. Day, ‘Leaving Home and Migrating in Nineteenth-Century England and Wales: Evidence

from the 1881 Census Enumerators’ Books (CEBs)’ (unpub. PhD. Thesis, University of

Cambridge, 2015).

S. McMullon, ‘Migration to Fletton 1841 – 1911: An exploration of family migration, the

creation of community and social mobility through marriage’ (unpub. PhD. Thesis,

University of Leicester, 2019).

Documents

A comparison of kinship family survival in York and