Butterfields of Haworth, Stanbury, Keighley and Bingley

[sallyyorks]

Fantastic stuff! The Butterfield jigsaw is joining together

[Sherry10]

You've pronbably already found it, but in case it's of any help to anyone Ann Butterfield was born 9 March 1837, but wasn't baptised until September 1852, at Oakworth, so soon after a church came there. She was the daughter of John Butterfield and Martha Sharp, of Two Laws ( though both later died at Laverack Hall in Oakworth). Ann had two illegitimate children - Emily, 1863, and John Ellis Butterfield, born at Two Law's 22 August 1861  and baptised 19 May 1888 ( another late baptism). I found a reference to the latter being the son of William Mitchell of Dangerous Corner ( just down from Two Laws).

[Cliffelinks65]

Hello again,

Just seen your message, Sherry - thank you.

I do have this Ann's details, showing with two illegitimate children...but I have Ellen as a name, and not Emily, with John Ellis, so will need to check out that name again. I have a note with John Ellis's record showing him as John Ellis "Kitchell", which was obviously an error in transcribing. The original document is clearly "Mitchell".
 
Just looking quickly at my files this is another line I haven't followed through so it's just as well it's raining again....!

I'm intrigued by "Dangerous Corner" at Two Laws....?  I wonder which one.... it's a very winding road up there.....

Cliffelinks65

[Sherry10]

 I have Ellen too - didn't spot it had changed to Emily on my post. Sorry. Guess it was autotext 'helping' again. I did a tremendous amount of work on this family branch - over decades - thinking they were mine. Went through the original records etc. So much easier these days - no computers then!

 Dangerous Corner was on the main road, which I believe was a turnpike then, on the way to Colne.  'Keighley became an intersection with other turnpikes including the Two-Laws to Keighley branch of the Toller Lane - Blue Bell turnpike (1755) from Bradford to Colne etc' (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keighley_and_Kendal_Turnpike)

 the Grouse Inn website adds :
'The popularity of the Grouse Inn dramatically increased, when the Toller Lane, Haworth and Blue Bell Turnpike Trust was established in the middle of the 18th century to improve the road connecting Bradford & Colne: it ran from Heaton in Bradford to the Blue Bell Inn in Two Laws near Colne.
The Toller Lane, Haworth and Blue Bell Turnpike Trust was founded in 1755 ..l.This Turnpike (toll) road is the road that runs along the front of the Grouse Inn, which must have benefited from the increased traffic.'

It looks like they had problems in situating the gates:

'Colne Turnpike: The positioning of the gate at Two Laws caused endless debate. Before the construction of the road through Ingrow the main route from Keighley to Colne lay through Oakworth and along Harehill edge to join the Bradford—Colne turnpike at Two Laws. If the gate were positioned on the Stanbury side, traffic from Keighley to Colne would be able to evade payment. If the gate were on the Colne side, traffic from Haworth and Stanbury to Keighley could avoid tolls by using the track through Pitcher Clough and Oldfield which rejoined the Harehill road at Pickles Hill. The Trustees tried to solve this problem by setting up an additional gate in Stanbury. The villagers accused the toll collectors of charging people for using the village street and driving their cattle to the fields.
Haworth presented similar problems. The game of moving the toll gate must have assumed the proportions of a major entertainment. In 1759 a toll gate was erected in West Lane. By 1763 we know it had migrated to opposite the Black Bull in Main Street
With four, and possibly five bars, instead of the original three all sorts of complicated arrangements had to be made to ensure that no one had to pay twice. In 1772 the Trust proposed a plan whereby half tolls should be paid at two successive gates in three combinations — (1) ½ Ling Bob, ½ Haworth; (2) ½ Two Laws, ½ Haworth; (3) ½ Hewinden, ½ Ling Bob. The plan never got off the ground. A ticket system was substituted particularly to try and satisfy the inhabitants of Stanbury. (http://www.valendale.co.uk/roads.html)

The same website also gives information about the old packhorse routes. For example:
'Newsholme was on a major packhorse route into Lancashire. A map from the collection of Dr Villy indicates that there was a Ford at Utley with a road up the hillside, by today’s Keighley Cemetery, to Braithwaite and Laycock. This increases the possibility that Dean Bridge in Newsholme, Dean is Roman in origin.'

There also appears to have been a second turnpike, running from Haworth to Two Laws, as seen on this map http://www.turnpikes.org.uk/map%20Yorkshire%20West%20turnpikes.jpg.

Two Laws might not have been so isolated then as it appears today!

And this, which I'm sure will interest Sally, given our shared links to Heptonstall :

'Haworth to Heptonstall and Hebden Bridge. This would have been a well traveled route,  Heptonstall had a Piece Hall  long before Halifax. A cloth hall was built at Heptonstall in 1545-1548 by the Waterhouse family of Shibden Hall and called Blackwell Hall after the London market of that name.  bbc.co.uk  calderdale.gov.uk 

It appears our ancestors had well travelled routes using trackways that would not occur to us today as being obvious routes between A and B. Did this route later become the Lees and Hebden Bridge turnpike Trust, running as it did from Keighley to Hebden Bridge?

 I've wondered if the house at Dangerous Corner was once the turnpike mentioned as being at Two Laws?

Incidentally William Mitchell married later to a different lady - Elizabeth Parker I think? Sorry but I'm working away ATM so can't check my records to be certain.

[Cliffelinks65]

Hi Sherry,

Really interesting info about the turnpikes - I have learned something this afternoon!

Also, apologies for not replying to your earlier post with the details about Norland Field Farm, somehow I missed that.

I agree with you that this may not be connected to "our" Butterfields...and yet I suppose that "in the mists of time" it might well be. However, it has prompted me to realise that I haven't spent a lot of time with any links to the Halifax area, so that's going on the "to do" list.

However, indirectly, this has lead me to a problem I have with some other Butterfield information in the 1841 census, and I wonder if you, or anyone seeing this, could help.

The census shows 3 Butterfield families living in Hope St (3), and another one in Back Hope Street.

I have traced 3 of these, but one of the Hope St families eludes me. This is Samuel Butterfield, 45 b 1796, married to "Elenor" Lambert, also shown as 45, with children Mary, Luke, Sarah, Elizabeth Susanna, Mark and Lambert.

I can trace this family forwards, but Samuel's parentage is missing in my records. I found a Samuel today born in Ovenden in 1799 (hence thinking about Halifax...) but he isn't the right one - wrong wife, wrong children etc, so I am stumped.

The odd thing is that the other three families here are traceable and broadly linked. It just seems strange that there were 4 families close by in that area....

Any thoughts, anyone?

Cliffelinks65

[Cliffelinks65]

Sorry, I should have said the 1841 census for Keighley.

[Sherry10]

Ive had a look at Sam, and see he married in Bingley and the witnesses surnames were Midgley and Hudson. Not sure if there's any clue there. Could he have been born there?

Also in the 1841 Census Sam was living a couple of doors from Tom Butterfield. Could they be related? Brothers?  I looked at the 1851 census and note Tom, aged  40, was still in Hope street with son James (18), daughter Sarah (11), and his mother Jane (66), all born in Keighley. Ann would have been born about 1785 which on the face of it means she might have been too young, but knowing how they could be out in ages, it wouldn't take much out for it to be a possibility. Just a thought.

[Cliffelinks65]

Almost certainly related, I think....it seems highly unlikely to me that in 1841 you would have Butterfield families in the same street who were not. The question is how, and that has been my problem here.

However, it's funny that writing it down in my last post has made me revisit what I had...and today I have come up with the following theories (hope they makes sense!) :-

In the 1841 Census for Hope St, Keighley, I have the following -

In Back Hope Street, we have Martin b 1788 with his wife Jane b 1786, and a child James aged 6,born 1835.

I think that Martin was born to a Grace Butterfield b 1864 and documented with no named father.  Grace was a daughter of John Butterfield and Sarah Wadsworth and his wife was Jane Bottomley.

In Hope Street we have 3 families - Samuel's being one of them.  There is also Thomas b 1811 with wife Martha b 1807 and daughter Sarah b 1840.

I have Thomas as the son of Martin, and in the 1851 census this shows Jane as Thomas's mother, Martin having died about 1846 I think.

The third family is John b1801, with wife Ann b 1808, and children Hannah b 1834, Martha b 1837 and Sharp b 1839.

The 3 families in Hope Street are very near to each other on the census forms.  At first glance, John's family didn't "connect" either, but looking more closely, I think that John was born to Abraham Butterfield and Rachel Waddington, apparently their only child....

Now here's the thing...Abraham Butterfield was also born to John and Sarah Wadsworth, like Grace, Martin's mother.

So, if this is right, then we have three of the four families connected. What about Samuel then?  Two suggestions - I can find no baptism record at all for him, but I think he is either 1) another child of Abraham and Rachel, and therefore John's brother, or 2) he is another illegitimate child of Grace, which is also possible, although there is a bit of a gap in ages. 

Additionally, I now have a Susan, living alone in Back Hope Street aged 73 (new fact today, I had missed it earlier). This Susan seems to be the daughter of a Joseph Butterfield, married to Mary Hey. Joseph was a brother of the John Butterfield who was married to Sarah Wadsworth.

Instinct tells me that Samuel must therefore be related to the others, and I think these two theories could confirm it, so for the moment I am going with them until I can find documentation to prove otherwise.

Does all this make any sense??!

Cliffelinks65

[Cliffelinks65]

I should point out that Susan's record is from 1851 census, not 1841.  My omission from last post.