Epitaphs by Goulding and Loft

This page contains extracts from a pamphlet written by R W Goulding in 1921, supplemented by information contained in General Loft’s notes. John Henry Loft (c 1768-1849) made notes on many north Lincolnshire churches and burial grounds, mainly in the 1830s; the last Louth date mentioned by him was 1841. The notes have been published by Lincolnshire Family History Society (in a searchable pdf format) and are numbered 1 – 736. Goulding’s original text is shown in red.

The opening part of Goulding’s paper discusses the subject in general terms.

The Epitaphs in St Mary’s Churchyard, Louth

A desire to preserve from oblivion the memory of loved ones appears to be an almost universal sentiment, and it is the motive that has led men to erect tombs and monuments, and to place commemorative inscriptions upon them. Vast numbers of such monuments have been erected in this country, but after the lapse of a few generations most of them have been neglected, and have become memorials that preserve no memories. Many indeed have crumbled away and perished, and many have been carelessly or ruthlessly mutilated and destroyed.

So far as I am able to judge, the inhabitants of a parish care very little about their progenitors and predecessors, of most of whom, if ever stones were reared to commemorate them, it may truly be said: “Their memorial is perished with them”. Here and there an Old Mortality may have renewed with his chisel half-defaced inscriptions, or he may have made copies of them, so that the names may be saved for the information of the few who are “mindful of th’ unhonour’d dead”. These few are persons of antiquarian tastes who have an ambition to keep green the memory of local worthies, and who feel that it is good to look upon the past and to contemplate their forefathers. To them it seems a pity that the names of good and worthy men and women of former generations should be absolutely forgotten, and over many a tomb they would breathe the words: “May no rude hand deface it, And its forlorn hic jacet.”

It may be objected that there is nothing particularly worth remembering about most of these men and women of the past, but the antiquary may well answer with the tomb-stone truism that such as they now are, the objectors themselves will shortly be: and he may further remind them of the truth contained in the passage which Charles Lamb quotes from Browne’s Christian Morals about one who has lived sixty or seventy years in the world : ‘ In such a compass of time a man may have a close apprehension what it is to be forgotten, when he hath lived to find none who could remember his father, or scarcely the friends of his youth, and may sensibly see with what face in no long time OBLIVION will look upon himself’. Furthermore, as Macaulay says, a community which takes no pride in the achievements of ancestors is not likely to achieve anything worthy to be remembered with pride by posterity.

These thoughts were suggested by a recent visit to the old burial-ground of Louth, St. Mary’s Churchyard. How different is its deranged aspect to-day from the aspect it presented in the year 1893, when most of the gravestones were standing, and nearly all the inscriptions were legible. I spent many of the Sunday afternoons of that year in making a transcript of the epitaphs, which record the names of some 1858 persons; but I imagine that anyone who should attempt to make a complete copy now would find many of the names difficult, if not impossible, to decipher.

It will not be counted for righteousness to the first Rector of Louth that it was he who caused the stones to be prostrated, and thus shortened the frail tenure which many of those who were laid to rest in St. Mary’s had upon the memory of posterity.

The first rector of Louth was Rev A S Wilde (1825-1918) rector 1859-1915. He was the “first rector” because his predecessors had been vicars. The date of levelling of most of the gravestones is not known.

In passing, I may remark that General J. H. Loft made a copy of the inscriptions in 1836, but I do not know into whose possession it has passed.

Goulding apparently had not seen General Loft’s notes. Loft evidently tried to make his notes comprehensive but missed some stones recorded by Goulding stones, eg Elizabeth Kingston, whose burial in 1751 is confirmed by the parish register. On the other hand Goulding was not invariably more accurate than Loft: he listed an epitaph dated 1818 for Mary the wife of William Arliss, whereas Loft recorded that the husband’s Christian name was John, a version confirmed by the parish register.

In our local records little is said about the places anciently used for burial grounds; but it appears that until the beginning of the eighteenth century the usual place of interment was St. James’s Churchyard. [Footnote: Burials in St. James’s Church were also frequent, and as many as 495 persons were intramurally interred in the period 1500-1561.] About 1700, however, or soon afterwards, St. Mary’s Church-yard became a public burying ground [Footnote: Occasional interments had taken place there previously, but I have notes of only seven instances, which occurred in the years 1534-5, 1613, 1615 and 1616.] and the relatives of deceased persons could make their choice between the two cemeteries, the fee for interment in St. Mary’s being 1s. 6d. more than that charged for burial in St. James’s Churchyard. The use of the latter was discontinued in 1770, and St. Mary’s became the sole burying ground for the parish.

It was found necessary to enlarge it in 1827, and when still further accommodation was required, the Cemetery on the London Road was provided in 1854. After this time the only interments in St. Mary’s were those of persons for whom grave-spaces had already been purchased, the last person buried there being Richard Foster, who died 8 June 1890.

The extension in 1827 may be seen by comparing the 1808 and 1834 town maps. The Ordnance Survey 25 inch first edition gives an area (including the extension) of 1.852 acres. The precise boundaries of the burial area by St James’ Church in 1770 are not known, but probably did not exceed a quarter of an acre.

Goulding did not comment on the practical difficulties of using for burial purposes ground that had already been over-used. Burials in St James’ Churchyard must have resembled the graveyard scene in Hamlet, where a grave for Ophelia could be provided only by digging up the remains of Yorick. This continued at St Mary’s. For example, it was reported that in order to provide a grave for Charlotte Good in June 1845 four skulls had to be unearthed, as well as numerous other bones and fragments of coffins. The report suggested that “so gross a violation of respect and decency in Louth surely cannot possibly exist whilst any portion of the new burying-ground [ie the 1827 extension] remains unoccupied.”¹ This may indicate that many spaces on the site had been purchased in advance with a view to avoiding disturbance. Gravestones must have deterred disturbance and some of the graves recorded by Loft would have been untouchable by the sexton, eg that of Thomas Phillips, “a very elegant stone tomb … within an inclosure of very lofty iron pallisades.” This subject is dealt with more fully in Robinson & Sturman 2001 pp 61-2.

Most of the stones are of the nineteenth century, but 169 are of the eighteenth century, 163 of this number dating between the years 1770 and 1799.

The parish registers show over 2,600 burials in the period 1770-1799. Loft listed 156 dated 1770-99. Some gravestones listed more than one person but, even if the average is taken as two per stone, it would indicate that over 85% of the late eighteenth century burials were in graves which at best had only temporary wooden markers, and which soon became unmarked graves.

The six before 1770 are:

1714 [=I715, according to modern computation], February 28: John Goulding, aged 41; and Mary his wife, 15 December 1741, aged 65.

1740, December 11 : Anne daughter of Thomas Thorold, aged 18 ; and Elizabeth wife of Thomas Thorold, 29 October 1753; aged 56.

1751, May 14: Elizabeth wife of George Kingston.

1753, May 12: William Gwillim, aged 11.

1762, April 5 Joseph Pool, joiner, aged 59.

1767, Frances wife of Richard Jackson, gent., and their two daughters Frances and Charlotte.

The transcriptions of Goulding and Loft do not always correspond with each other or with the parish registers. For example the reference above to Anne Thorold (d 1740) should have been to Ann Tharratt, not the daughter of Thomas Thorold, though the reference to his wife, Elizabeth, was correct. Loft did not record either Ann or Elizabeth.

Goulding continued with references to some stones that were at the time still standing, ten stones that recorded the cause of death was recorded on the stone and 26 stones that recorded the occupation of the deceased. One of the latter was of a type occasionally found for blacksmiths (“My sledge and hammer lie declined …”) and Goulding made a lengthy digression on other English examples. He also listed a few examples of stones that recorded praise of the character of the deceased or had inscriptions that were otherwise unusual; and he gave a list of persons recorded as dying aged at least 80.

Value

Memorial stones can be helpful in confirming dates, ages, identities and relationships. In that respect they can be useful in filling in information gaps left by the parish registers: see the appendix below. For example, we may suppose that John Goulding, who died in 1714 and is listed above, was the same person as the John “Gouling”, who was married in 1700. The supposition become much more probable when the stone tells that John’s widow was called Mary and the marriage register tells us that John Gouling married Mary Tatam. However, neither the stone nor the registers tell us anything about what John did for a living or how otherwise he fitted into society.

The main value of accounts like Goulding’s paper lies in providing pegs on which people with local knowledge could hang further information about the deceased. These snippets of information may sometimes be illuminating. In this respect Loft’s notes are not merely much more numerous than Goulding’s but of higher value, because Loft had more personal knowledge. His comments applied only to a small minority of the deceased and were often incomplete or gossipy but they do give information not found elsewhere. Some examples from Loft’s notes are given below.

Fatchitt: The Universal British Directory (1794) shows “Mrs Fatchitt Cordwainer”; Loft explained that she was Ann Fatchitt (d 1808), widow of Robert Fatchitt (d 1778), “a very respectable shoemaker” and that she “continued the business until her death.” (Loft Notes 1 & 2)

Moor[e]: Thomas Moor (d 1790) “was a currier, his house and shop at the top of the Butcher market, corner of Rosemary Lane.” (Loft Note 19) He was listed in the 1767 rating list, but with his occupation in lieu of a forename.

Reynolds: John Reynolds (d 1781) “was a master bricklayer living in Eastgate …” (Loft Note 23). He was listed in the 1767 rating list but without his occupation.

Both Loft and Goulding recorded a stone commemorating Thomas Ritson (d 1788), curate of Louth for 23 years, but Loft added a personal comment that included the only known description of the King of Prussia:

Mr Ritson had the finest and mellowest voice I ever heard for filling a large church like Louth; he was unfortunately a little too fond of the Bottle. He lodged or lived at a very small thatched public house at the end of Westgate; being the last house on the North side…

Both Loft and Goulding referred briefly to Stote Manby (d 1790) a man alleged to have been cheated out of his inheritance, but the story was too complicated for detailed explanation.

Both noted an unusual inscription on the stone of Ann Burman; Goulding’s version was as follows.

A curious motto was placed on the tomb of Ann Burman, who died 11 November 1831, aged 55 “And all the people shouted and said, God save the King”. At the time when there was great excitement in the country because of the treatment of Queen Caroline by George IV, Mrs. Burman and her husband took different sides. She was a partisan of the King, but he was a strong Queen’s man, and when she died, he thought proper to put on record a text which had often been on her lips. The husband was known as Radical Burman, and he displayed a sign inscribed

Radical Burman lives here,
He makes Radical boots and shoes,
And he sells Radical beer.

Loft’s description showed that the stone itself was unusual: “stone pillar, about 15 inches square … castellated top, and four feet high above the ground.” Goulding’s explanation of the inscription by reference to George IV’s prosecution of Queen Caroline in 1820 might perhaps be correct. However, John “Radical” Burman was a joiner and builder, not a shoemaker, and there is no evidence that he ever sold beer. He was described as a joiner in his final court appearance, when he was declared to be insane and committed to a lunatic asylum.²

To summarise: Loft’s notes make a useful contribution to the history of Louth in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Goulding’s paper broadly confirms Loft’s accuracy but adds little and should mainly be seen as a piece of reflective journalism on memories of the dead.

Appendix: Records in Louth’s Burial Registers to 1837

Louth’s parish registers are available online and appear to be complete for the eighteenth century except for the burials in the period December 1735-June 1737, where pages have been torn out. In the first half of the century most pages were poor in layout and handwriting but an extensive transcription was made by William Wrangham (1784-1832), a churchwarden. Unfortunately Wrangham’s work was not invariably accurate; for example he recorded the 1740 burial referred to above as “Ann the daughter of Mr Francis Tharratt”, whereas the original reads “Ann the daughter of Mr Thomas Tharratt.” The quality of the registers improved when Edward Gray became parish clerk in 1752.

Louth’s burial registers generally provided only minimal information. For men this was the name of the deceased and the date of burial. For women there was usually also an indication of marital status eg “Jane, the wife of John Doe” or “Jane Doe, widow”. For children the name of the father was usually given eg “Jane, the child of John Doe”. From 1813 the addition of ages became a statutory requirement, but for young children the age was generally given as “infant” and the identification of the father was soon generally dropped. Occupational or status information was given about the deceased in only a very small percentage of cases. For example, in April 1759 the burials were recorded of “Robert Barkwith, Butcher” and “John Marshall, Gent”; and when Edward Gray died in 1797 the register recorded that he had been parish clerk for 45 years.

Before 1813 the main occupational information comes from the marriage registers for the period 1754 to about 1779, when the occupations of Louth bridegrooms were usually recorded. From 1813 it became a statutory requirement for registers of baptisms to record the occupation of the father; but by that time the percentage of children receiving Church of England baptisms was in decline.