Reply To: Unanswered Questions
6 February 2022 at 6:01 pm #7736
4) Was the body of Emor Charlesworth ever recovered/identified?
- Emor’s father (John) was still recovering from the flood on the first day of the inquest (Fri 6 Feb) and he wasn’t there to identify any of the bodies. The newspaper reports are contradictory, but it looks like there were two male bodies that remained undefined in Honley inns that were then identified after the inquest jury had left (as we know that there were three “unknown”s who were buried and they didn’t include the two Honley bodies). The ages of the two match up with Charleworth children (John & Emor), but there’s no mention of Emor being buried in newspaper reports nor any burial records. Emor’s name also seems to drop off the list of the still missing.
5) The flood babies
- Again, newspaper reports are contradictory, but there are reports of a new-born baby being found dead at Hinchliffe Mill and also reports of a new-born baby being found with (or near to) Hannah Bailey at Thongsbridge. Some reports suggest the latter was Hannah’s baby, although her husband makes no mention of her being pregnant or having recently given birth. It was also suggested that the Hinchliffe Mill baby had “been purposely placed there since the accident at the reservoir, by some unnatural mother to conceal her shame”. There are no mention of either baby at the inquest, nor can I find any burial records (caveat: Hinchliffe Mill Wesleyan burial records are lost).
- The Leeds Intelligencer (14 Feb 1852): “There was also found on Tuesday [i.e. 10 Feb], at Hinchcliffe, the body of a child unknown, which, from certain appearances which it exhibited, the medical gentlemen who have examined it, and with whom we have conversed, have declared must have been born in the water.”
- Huddersfield Chronicle (14 Feb 1852): “We may mention here, as rumours have obtained currency, as to the unfortunate sufferer being drowned whilst in the pains of labour, that if this is [Hannah Bailey’s] child, it bears evidence of not only having been born, but dressed, and is to all appearance of the age stated [i.e. a few days old].” The body was at the Rose & Crown, Thongsbridge.
- One oddity is that lack of coverage of the Hinchliffe Mill baby in the Huddersfield newspapers — the majority of references are in non-Huddersfield papers, so may not be accurate.
- My working theory is that the Hinchliffe Mill baby was indeed placed there after the flood and that the reports of a baby became conflated with the finding of Hannah’s youngest daughter Martha. The testimony at the inquest [6 Feb] seems to make it clear that the infant was taken to the R&C and that Aner Bailey identified the body as being his youngest daughter.
- Huddersfield Examiner (14 Feb 1852): “John Moorhose Woodhead, joiner, of Holmfirth, said, whilst he and some other parties were going to look at a number of houses at Thongsbridge on Thursday morning, about half-fast two o’clock, they discovered the bodies of Hannah Bailey and an infant supposed to be hers. They found the body of Hannah Bailey a little above Thongsbridge, about twenty yards from the bridge on the southeast side in Wooldale; the child [I doubt they would use the world “child” for a new-born baby] was about ten yards above; she had no covering on, but the child had part of a night-dress fastened round its neck. Both the bodies were taken to the Rose and Crown Inn, Thongsbridge. Enor Bailey said he had lost his wife and two children; the youngest was about two years old, and the eldest was aged four years; he had seen their bodies at the Rose and Crown. He (Bailey) was stunned by being thrown on one side by the water. The wife and he were standing on the floor, and the children were playing on the bed, when the flood came, and swept them all away. He was the only one that was saved out of the four.”