Monday, February 05, 2007

1881 census - final Hugh Ainscough b.1868

James Ainscough b.1755 Wrightington branch
You may recall that in an earlier blog (19th January 2007 - 1881 census, Hugh Ainscough - who are they all?) Andrew Scarisbrick ( had set about to identify all 22 of the Hugh Ainscoughs recorded in the 1881 census.
Once again he has managed to successfully identify the final Hugh Ainscough featuring in the 1881 census (22 of them in total!). Please note that this Hugh is not part of my (Barbara Ainscough) family line but the information may be useful to others. So far my line can be traced as far back as 1558 to Mawdesley/ Ormskirk records - see blog entries 1st Dec 06 and 21st Jan 07.
To view the tree click on the image and this will link to my Flickr account. You need to be registered (free!) to download the original size from here.
Andy Scarisbrick writes the following:

“I think I have identified the final Hugh Ainscough in the 1881 census. He is Hugh born 1868, Wigan. The evidence is a little contradictory, as his mother in 1881 is given as Elizabeth A. born 1841, Wigan; but in 1871, the only Hugh A. born 1868, Wigan, has mother Elizabeth A. born 1816, Wigan. quite a difference in age. The father in 1871 is Hugh A. born 1831, Wigan.
This would make him the son of Hugh A. born 1797, Wrightington, who was murdered, son of James born c. 1755. Maybe Hugh (1831) was married twice? This could make sense as the two other children in 1881, Joseph (b. 1877) and Catherine (b. 1879) are a fair bit younger than Hugh. Also, the mother of Hugh (b. 1831) was Catherine, so it makes sense that he names a daughter after her.
I have been looking at those newspaper reports you forwarded about the murder of a Hugh Ainscough. It sounded absolutely brutal. I don't think he is one of mine (North Meols). The dates for the reports are also a little off. The first one reporting the murder gave a date of Friday May 4th 1890, yet the second talking about the inquest gave Saturday May 6th 1860. Looking into it I think the correct one is 1860. As his age was 63, this would mean the Hugh was born about 1797, rather than 1827.
I have found a Hugh Ainscough born about 1798 in the 1851 census, and had died by 1861, and was living near Hunter's Hill, Wrightington. He was born in Wrightington. Interestingly enough, his wife in 1851 was born in Mawdesley. It looks like she died in 1852, which corresponds to what was said in the report.

…………More about the Wrightington Ainscoughs
These are all children of James Ainscough and Elizabeth Fletcher.
There is a Henry Ainscough (b. 1784), a James Ainscough (b. ~1795), and a Hugh Ainscough (b. 1797 {the one who was brutally murdered}) all born in Wrightington. Actually, Henry (1784) says he was born in Wrightington in 1851, (in 1861 he says he was born Mawdesley, when he also has a sister, Mary (b. 1786) living with him).

There is also the following from Croston records;
Burial: 1 Jan 1799
Margaret Ainscough - Daughter of James Ainscough & Elizth.
Died: Dec 30 1798
Age: 9
Abode: Wrightington
Cause of Death: Consumption
Notes: Buried on the west end of the Church yard

This is why I am certain James Ainscoughs family were from Wrightington. I will complete a tree of this branch and forward it to you.”

See the following news article about Hugh b.1797 at the following website:
Friday, May 4, 1860.
 ……. a farmer living near Hunter's Hill, Wrightington, had been found murdered in a field near his own home, under circumstances of the greatest cruelty and barbarity. ………….. A farmer named Hugh Ainscough, 63 years of age, occupying a farm about half a mile from Bispham School, left his home on Tuesday last for the purpose of paying his rent. ………….Instead of going direct home, however, he called at the Farmers' Arms Inn, kept by Mr. John Thomas, where he stayed till near midnight. Amongst the company were a woman named Ellen Fisher, who had been rendering assistance during the holding of the dinner, and to whom it is said the deceased (who was a widower, but has a family grown up) was to have been married in the course of a few weeks; and four young men, named John Prescott, Richard Benson, Charles Hart, and Edward Cubbin. When Ainscough left to go home, the woman Fisher accompanied him, and they had not proceeded far on their way before they discovered that the young men mentioned above were following them; and when they had got into a field, known as "Blackburn's Field," ……………..the following morning (Wednesday), about half-past four, a miner named James Clarke …………. …….was horrified to see a man's head and face, very much disfigured, protruding from the heap. The other portion of the body was completely buried under the earth, which consisted of large clods of clay, about two feet long and eight or nine inches wide. Clarke immediately raised an alarm, and assistance being procured……

No comments: