The Curious Case of Mrs Colville

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

And in 1888 the landlord of the Duke of Wellington public house on Brady Street was Mrs Amelia Cross.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

The keeper of the Duke of Wellington public house on Brady Street in 1882 was Edward Cross.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert]

Thanks Tom. That one would be the wrong age to be Charlotte's father.

[Tom_Wescott]

For what it's worth, and it's probably nothing, a John Colwell (age 38) was sentenced to 8 months hard labor in 1883 for sexual assault against two women, Elizabeth Rivett and Elizabeth Colwell.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Great stuff, guys. It's interesting that John (or whoever "Mr. Colwell" was) was not at home that night. Charlotte and her mother were sleeping together, apparently alone, in bed. It seems to me that if Charlotte thought their house was being broken into the father would have been woken up at some point had he been there.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert]

And not to mention that in 1891 he was living at the same address as a Samuel Cross. I looked at the Croisette site and Samuel doesn't seem to be involved.

I found Edward St in the 1890 electorals but numbers 27, 28 and 29 are missing.

[David Orsam]

Yes, I agree, I certainly couldn't find any record of a "John's Terrace" so it must be St John's.

The more I think about it, the more confident I am that it's the right family. We have now established not only that John Caldwell the confectioner and John Coldwell were one and the same person, but that this man was living in Brady Street, at a location within that street which makes perfect sense in relation to the newspaper story, in the crucial year of 1888. And we know that a John Coldwell (whose brother was a former confectioner) had an 11-year-old daughter called Charlotte.

So it's all looking really good. Not to mention that John Coldwell was the son-in-law of a Charles Cross!

[Robert]

Yes David I think it's probably as you say : he arrived in St John's Terrace (I'm assuming John meant to put St John's Terrace on the baptism) and found he was too late to register there, and if someone did replace him in Brady St, they in turn were too late to register there.

In 1889 there was a Morris Hearne registered at 1 St John's Terrace. In 1890and 91 no one is registered at #1. I have looked at #1 in the 1891 census and it is a three room property occupied by a family of eight, which is roughly the same size as John's family.

[David Orsam]

Absolutely brilliant, this forum at its best. Thank you Robert.

I guess it would all make sense if the electoral registers were compiled at the end of the year before they are dated, say 1 November every year.

So, let's see, the Coldwells move into 74 Brady Street in early 1885, and John starts life as a confectioner, thus "John Caldwell" is included in the 1886 PO Directory. This would have been published in December 1885 but clearly compiled and printed much earlier than this. In fact, the date stated in the introduction of the PO Directory for entries to be received for the commercial section is by 20 October. I note that the 1886 electoral register for Whitechapel is missing from Ancestry so we have to assume that John Coldwell is included in the 1886 register as being at number 74. He remains at 74 during 1886 sufficiently late in the year for inclusion in the 1887 PO Directory but has moved next door to 72 (and abandoned his confectionery business) by 1 November 1886, hence 72 Brady Street is given as his address in the 1887 electoral register. He is still at the same address in November 1887 and this is reflected in the 1888 electoral register (and explains why he is not in the 1888 PO Directory) and remains at number 72 through the "Autumn of Terror" until the end of the first week of November when he moves with his family to Shoreditch (where his daughter is born on 12 November). But, as he was still living at 72 Brady Street on 1 November 1888 he was included in the 1889 register as being there, even though he never lived there in 1889. To me, this makes more sense than him moving from 72 Brady Street out to Shoreditch in Nov 88 and then back to 72 during 1889, although I guess there was nothing to have stopped him from doing this. It all depends on when the electoral registers were actually complied for each year for the East Ward of Whitechapel. Either way, if the famous Mrs Coldwell was John's wife it must mean that it was from number 72 Brady Street that young Charlotte Coldwell reportedly heard the screams in the early hours of 31 August.

[Robert]

Hi David

I had that trouble with Ancestry a few years ago, It went on for weeks. Deeply annoying.

There must be an explanation for the 1888 anomaly. I think you're on the right track.

Here is the 1887 :

[David Orsam]

Ah yes, I see what you mean. For 1889 Ancestry lists John Coldwell's address as "7 Hampshire Court" but when you look at the original register it is 72 Brady Street! I may even have seen the Hampshire Court address but assumed it was the wrong person and that my JC had moved to Shoreditch by this time anyway so didn't click through. And the failure of search results to produce a John Coldwell in 1887 and 1888 must have psychologically discouraged me. I spent many hours going through those electoral registers - it took me some time to work out that no. 74 was in Whitechapel not Bethnal Green - and I'm not making excuses but I remember one evening having terrible trouble with Ancestry and it was taking about 20 minutes to turn each page so I guess I foolishly gave up.

Anyway, I have now found John Coldwell at 72 Brady Street in 1888 and 1889 like you say - Whitechapel East Ward - but can't locate the entry in 1887 showing 74 Brady Street. The East Ward register seems to be missing most of the pages on Ancestry for me but somehow you must have found it. Well done, it's a great result. I am feeling rather more positive that we might have found the right person although that anomaly of him living in Shoreditch in late 1888 is annoying.

[Robert]

Hi David

I'm now trying to remember what I did, because Ancestry's advanced viewer has gone on the blink and when they offer their basic viewer instead - well, there is no basic viewer. I think in 1889 they list John Coldwell but with the wrong address on the results list - they give the address above his. For 1888 and 1887, they don't list him but I just went to Samuel Lyons who was at 28 Brady St and then clicked backwards to see if Coldwell was among the C's. For 1890, the register is organized by streets and number 74 does not appear. So you may not have missed #74 in 1888 and 1889 since I don't know if it was actually listed. However #72 was.

[David Orsam]

Robert - that's amazing! I did consult the electoral registers for both Whitechapel and Bethnal Green (both online and hardcopy) but didn't manage to find number 74 Brady Street and gave up - but I must have been looking in the wrong place. My bad. Anyway, well, very interesting, that certainly confirms my theory that "John Caldwell" the confectioner was actually John Coldwell but raises a question mark in that my John Coldwell was living in Shoreditch when his daughter was born on 12 November 1888 - and was still living there when she was baptised on 5 December 1888 - so I wouldn't have expected him to be at 72 Brady Street in 1889 but I suppose it's not impossible. Great find though, thank you, and apologies for missing it myself.

[Robert]

David, I had a little look in the electoral rolls. In 1887 there is a John Coldwell living at 74 Brady St. But in 1888 and 1889, John Coldwell is living at 72 Brady St!

[GUT]

Now David can you link the two CCs?