Bishops' House

Monday, 07 24th

Last updateWed, 17 May 2017 11am

Font Size

SCREEN

Profile

Layout

Menu Style

Cpanel

History

Category: History Published on 10 May 2012 admin
Hits: 10428

This part of the website will no doubt be a continually expanding one.  The first part being a short commentary written by local historian and expert on the Blythe family of Bishops' House, Joy Bullivant.  Thanks to Museums Sheffield for the second part which describes the development of the building. This second part is currently being updated. Please bear with us .... 

  

Bishops House stands on land known once known as Colliteland that was given to the John de Blythe  by William Chaworth in 1377. The land which was later called Coltyard  was in continuous ownership by the Blythe Family till the property was sold by Samuel Blythe junior some time after the death of his father Samuel in 1737.    

Evidence suggests two Bishops,  John Blythe of Salisbury and Geoffrey Blythe Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry were born in a house on this land, but the present  house is thought to be of too modern a construction to be that house. 

click for a larger image

It is not certain when the house was first referred to as Bishops House as early documents simply call the land Coltyard.  A map by William Fairbanks in 1777 still labels the land Coltyard   A map included with conveyance documents prior to the sale of Meersbrook Estate  in 1886 is the earliest legal document at present found to call it  Bishops House,  and it is given as an address in the 1891 census. References to the Bishop connection can be found in books and articles as early as 1817 by  Samuel Lysons in his  Magna Brittanica but he did not give the legend much credence.

Documents  suggest that it was in Richard Blythe’s possession in 1500, brother to Geoffrey and John Blythe. Certainly later documents state that his son William was in possession of the land in Norton Lees in 1541. A John Blythe was in possession in 1546 after William’s death.  John, from other documents would appear to be a younger son of William. This John died in 1561 passing the land onto his son William and his smithy gear to his other son John. However a later document in 1572 had a  John as occupier and the land later passed to his son William.  It is probable that the other William died soon after his father. A document regarding an exchange of land between Godfrey Foljambe of Morehall and  John Parker of Norton Lees in 1583 directly names William Blythe as owner of the land called Coltyard.  A family heirloom of a Flanders Chest directly links this William to the first John Blythe.

The wills of various Blythes give an idea of when the additions to the house took place.  William Blythe’s will in 1631 has an inventory that lists 8 rooms and 3 outhouses, while Captain William Blythe’s  will inventory in 1665 lists 11 rooms and a cellar and 5 outhouses, and  William Blythe’s will of 1675 lists 12 rooms  plus a new house (hall) and new chamber above,  and 6 outhouses. The changes by Captain William Blythe would have to be after 1648 , when he took part in the demolition of Sheffield Castle and bought salvaged plaster and timber to build the new bed chamber and embellish other parts of the house.  Possibly the earliest change was in 1627, the date on the panelling in the hall, which also has the initials WB. However as the panelling was obviously taken from somewhere else and cut to fit the hall, we have no way of knowing if it was from older alterations or someone else’s house altogether.

Sometime after the death of Samuel Blythe in 1735 the house passed out of Blythe ownership and the house and fields were let out to tenant farmers.  It is probable that the land was bought by Benjamin Roebuck in 1757 when he bought Meersbrook Estate, which he later sold to Samuel Shore Senior in about 1783. Certainly Bishops House was in the Shore’s possession in 1805 as shown on a map of the time. At some time  during the tenancy the house was divided into 2 separate self contained dwellings.

Due to the collapse of the Shore family fortune, the Meersbrook Estate was sold. Some parts were sold to property developers and plans were drawn up to develop the whole of the Estate as housing leaving a small garden round Meersbrook Hall and knocking down Bishops House and other nearby buildings to make room for  new access roads for the housing estate. A mixture of public pressure, the need for more public parks and a place to put Ruskins Collection led to negotiations by Sheffield Corporation to buy the land including Bishops House. The asking price per acre was the highest price of any of the land bought as parks at the time, higher than Hillborough or Endcliffe Park. The high price  resulted in  the amount of  land  purchased being reduced, and the need to use some of the land to make new access roads, resulted is a much smaller public park than originally planned.  It is not known why Bishops House was included, but possibly this too was due to public pressure. Certainly the legend of the house was well known  at that time.

The Parks Authority continued to use Bishops House as a dwelling house, housing 2 separate families of park employees at a time. This was continued till the 1970s when the house was restored and turned into a museum opening in July 1976.  Originally the house was open to the public during the week from 10 a.m till 5 p.m from Wednesday to Saturday and Sunday from 11 a.m-5 p.m. Spending cuts over the years have resulted in the present limited visiting times.

 

Building Bishops' House

 

Although no documentary sources of the construction of Bishops’ House exist, enough is known about how timber-framed buildings were built to be able give a fairly accurate account of the sequence of construction.

Over 90% of timber-framed buildings were made of oak. This figure is not just an accident of survival as other species are preserved as well. Historical records show that oak was both the most expensive and the most commonly used tree. Of the other species found, elm is the most common, with ash and aspen most often found in medieval terraced houses and other homes of the relatively poor. Even when stone and later, brick were readily available, timber-framed structures were still the dominant form of building across the country until well into the 1600s. Oak was a carefully managed timber resource in the forests of England. Because of the difficulties of transportation most buildings would have been constructed from locally sourced materials and we presume that Bishops’ House and the other buildings of the village of Norton Lees would have been built of timber from local woodland. Even now the small remnant of woodland at Gleadless Valley is no more than 1,300 m away. Two sources refer to this woodland in 1462 and 1583. 

The Dendrochronological report is inconclusive on the source of the original beams, citing the possibility that while a likely source would have been the nearby Sherwood Forest, a good match for the tree rings comes from the West Midlands. The report mentions that the prosperity of the occupants as a result of the scythe-manufacturing industry in Sheffield may have allowed them to be more selective in sourcing the timber, and that there are many records as far back as the twelfth century on the movement of oak planks over great distances. With this in mind, we cannot be certain where the timbers that went into Bishops’ House originally came from. 

Traditionally the trees would have been felled at the end of the autumn, perhaps November or December, and left to weather over the winter, but no longer. Green oak was workable with the iron saws and adzes available at the time but once its moisture content became too low the oak would have become too brittle. So by early the following year, perhaps January or February, the timber would have been sawn into the main beams and smaller timbers such as the braces and rafters. However, by the Tudor period the growth of the tanning industry meant that it became profitable to fell the trees in the spring when the bark was easiest to remove and could be sold to the tanners to cover the cost of felling.

Timber-framed buildings were always prefabricated; the beams cut to size and the joints cut and fitted in the carpenter’s yard. The main beams would have been placed on trestle tables and moved to lie at a right angle before the mortice joint was cut. They would then have been marked with an ‘X’ with two parallel lines bordering it. Eleven of these marks have been found at Bishops’ House.

Cutting the mortice and tenon joint and marking the timbers in the carpenter's yard

Other marks, usually scored with the flat end of a chisel, were used to indicate which of the timbers were to be jointed to which others and many of the beams preserve these carpenters' marks; usually scribed as a series of modified Roman numerals.

Carpenters' marks in Bishops' House

We usually assume that the prepared beams would then have been brought to the site by horse and cart. Whole frames would have been fitted together while horizontal, holes being drilled to connect the beams and slightly tapered round wooden pegs driven into the holes to join the beams together.

 

Vertical posts, horizontal beams and angled braces held together by wooden pegs in Bishops' House

The finished frames would then be reared into position with pulleys and ropes.

Because it was often not possible to get straight timbers to run the length of a building, a scarf joint was sometimes used to link two timbers together in a line, and we can see this connecting the purlins.

 

A scarf joint connecting two sections of Purlin

Timber-framed buildings are usually built directly onto the ground surface, which was probably just roughly leveled. At Bishops’ House the main posts, wherever visible, have been placed on a pad of stones, sometimes called a stylobate. Their purpose would have been to make sure that when the horizontal timbers were jointed, that these were level and, of course, in keeping the posts off the ground, to avoid damp and rot. These stylobates often comprise several stones, presumably attempts to do some final adjustments to make sure that the horizontal beams they were attached to were truly horizontal. Measurements of some of the upper beams have shown that even after some five centuries they are level to within one or two centimetres over five metres. 

The lowermost level of horizontal beams, the sill plate, would have been supported on temporary blocks which would have been replaced after completion by inserting a low stone wall running around the building. The sill beams would have rested on this. This was a local tradition on the Yorkshire side of the Pennines. However we have no proof of this in Bishops’ House as the whole building was strengthened with a stone wall in the seventeenth century and all traces of earlier construction are now buried within this wall.

It has always been assumed that Bishops’ house was built around 1500 from the style of its construction and from its associations with the Blythe family. An attempt was made using dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) to date the timbers in Bishops’ House but the results for the earliest periods were inconclusive, as the outer or sapwood had been removed and so the final year, the year of felling, could not be established. 

 Terms used in the text for the major parts of a timber-framed building

 

 Sources 

Harris R [1999] Discovering Timber-Framed Buildings. Shire Publications Ltd.

Jones M [1989] Sheffield’s Woodland Heritage. Sheffield City Libraries.

Morgan R [1977] Dendrochronological dating of a Yorkshire timber building. Vernacular Architecture 8, 809-814.

Rackham O [1986] The history of the countryside. Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London. 

Yorke T [2010] Timber framed buildings explained. Countryside books.

 

Ken Dash

 

The development of the building

The oldest parts of Bishops’ House were built in the 1500s. It’s one of the oldest timber-framed building in Sheffield, typical of a large farmhouse or small manor house from that time. There are only three other surviving buildings of a similar date in Sheffield; Carbrook Hall (now the Carbrook Inn), Broomhall and the Queen’s Head pub (previously known as the Hall in the Ponds).

It isn’t known who Bishops’ House was built for but is probably about the right size for a wealthy gentleman or farmer who owned his own land. When it was first built Bishops’ House followed a traditional medieval plan. Builders at the time preferred to construct buildings only one room wide to make it easier to erect the roof. The reason for this was because the oak beams used to span across the building; the Tie beams and Floor Beams, were usually cut from one whole log which was often about 6 m (20 ft) long. The longest Tie Beam from the First Phase of Bishops' House is 6.2 m (20 ft 4 ins.) long.

An investigation which began in 2011 has given us a new and more accurate history of Bishops’ House and we can now place many more of the events in the building’s history into a chronological sequence. As you might expect from a building of this age, it is a complicated story of construction, demolition and continuous alteration.  

The drawing (right) was completed in 1992 based on the 1823 original by Edward Blore. Click on it for a larger version (which children might like to colour in!)

Bishops’ House Phase 1

As it survives today, the original building is 11.1 metres long (East-West), 6.5 metres wide (North-South) and 8.0 to 8.2 metres high. It consists of two bays. The East Bay is 5.1 metres long and the West Bay is 5.0 metres long. However when we look at the roof structure we can see that there was once a third bay to the west of these two bays. In the roof void can be seen the truncated ends of the ridge timber and the two purlins. A fourth timber, the wall plate on the north wall was also cut. If this third bay was the same size as the other two then the original building would have been about 15 metres long. The pitch of the roof, about 41o, tells us that it would have been tiled, as now, though whether the current tiles are five hundred years old is impossible to tell. It is certainly likely that over the centuries many, if not all would have been replaced.

In its original form the building would have been a simple structure; a hall with no upper floor, or perhaps just a small one at one end, accessed by a ladder and used for storage. There is no evidence from the posts that they were ever jointed half way up across the bays to take floor beams and support an upper floor.

The original ground floor would have been of packed earth and covered with rushes, which would have been cleared out periodically, as they became trampled or smelly. Buildings of this type often did not have a fireplace and chimney. Fireplaces and chimneys did, of course, exist in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries but tended to belong to higher-status dwellings. It is far more likely that the building would have been heated by a central fire, constrained by a low barrier of stones.

Internal partitions would have divided the building into rooms. Unfortunately any traces of where these partitions were lies below the current flagstone floor.

Window glass would have been an expensive luxury and it is likely that the original building had wooden shutters which would have slid horizontally in grooves on the side of the window frame, or oiled fabric instead of glass. The windows were also used to let out smoke from the fire and tallow (animal fat) candles. Window glass wasn’t in common use in ordinary houses until the late 1500s. The current window panes were dated using X-ray fluorescence spectrometry to between 1820 and 1860. Was this the first window glass used in the house? We’ll never know. The house would have been lit by natural lighting supplemented by candles.

plan 1Bishops’ House Phase 2

Probably several decades after the first structure was built, the western bay was demolished and a cross wing was built up to it. As mentioned above, the roof timbers of the first building were cut to conform to the roof line of this second building. The pitch of the roof of the cross-wing is also 41o. As with the first phase, this too, was built as a three bay structure though this time it was built with an upper floor as part of the structure. The physical evidence for this is slight; a small length of an upper beam, now encased in plaster that seems to have been cut through. However, as there is no trace of an entrance in what survives of the cross wing, we must conclude that at one time there was a third bay to the north of the two that survive, and that the entrance was there. The surviving structure was built to a smaller scale than the original. Its surviving portion is 8.3 metres long (North-South), 5.3 metres wide (East-West) and 7.0 to 7.1 metres high. The Northern surviving bay is 4.2 metres long and the Southern is 4.1 metres long. If the missing bay to the north of the surviving bays was the same length as the others, then the whole cross wing would have been at least 12.3 metres long. Rather oddly the original building and the cross wing had no communicating door when originally built so it seems that though butted up to each other, they were two separate households. There are two doors connecting the two now and both have been cut through the eastern wall.

In the northern of the two surviving bays there is good evidence of a steep staircase to communicate between floors; now blocked up and covered over.

Some time after the cross wing was built a chimney was inserted in its south eastern corner. When this was done one of the posts was removed, creating a structural weakness. It may be that the builders thought that the chimney would replace the post, substituting for its strength, but the effect of removing the post can still be seen, as the cross wing leans significantly to the east.

 

Some time after building the chimney, the original earth floor in the original building was overlain by the flagstone floor we can now see.

In the west wing were four rooms; a parlour and a buttery on the ground floor and two rooms upstairs. 

The parlour would have been mainly used as a bedroom, with the upper rooms providing additional sleeping space and storage. The buttery was used to store butts (barrels) of beer. Most people at this time drank small (weak) beer as water was usually not safe for drinking. The buttery was used to store butts (barrels) of beer. Most people at this time drank small (weak) beer as water was usually not safe for drinking.


The drawing on the right shows the layout of the house during the mid 1500’s. The two upstairs chambers above the parlour and buttery would have been reached by ladder like stairs from the parlour.

Bishops’ House 1600—1642
plan 2After 1600 improvements were made to the house making it a more comfortable place to live in. Windows and fireplaces were added to improve the light and warmth within the house. Wooden panelling and plasterwork were added to make the rooms less draughty and for decoration. These alterations suggest the owners of the house were reasonably wealthy with a disposable income for home improvements.

Two fireplaces were added into the west wing, in the parlour and the chamber above. Around the same time a new window was put in each room. Decorative plasterwork was also added over the fireplace of the chamber. It is decorated with popular designs of the period including grapes, vine leaves and figs. The ceiling in the parlour was also decorated with Tudor roses.

The hall was split into two storeys with the addition of a floor. The new room could have been used for storage as it would have been the warmest and driest in the house. Two windows on this floor were added to improve the lighting and a new door connected it to the west wing.

New wooden panelling was added to the hall showing the rooms importance as a reception area for guests. The panelling is beautifully carved with interlacing strap-like bands known as strapwork. This wood work and some of the furniture currently on display show the influence of Flemish design from the early 1600s. In the central carved panel “WB 1627” is visible and is thought to stand for William Blythe the first recorded owner of the house.

The drwaing (right) shows the layout of the house from 1600—1662. Two fireplaces have been added as well as additional chambers over the hall and kitchen.
Downstairs

Bishops’ House 1642—1753
plan 3The next phase of alterations to Bishops’ House were probably completed by the second William Blythe, son of the first known owner of the house. He built a stone two storey extension to the back of the west wing. This added two extra rooms, a cellar and a new staircase. This staircase was a spiral, which was later replaced by the staircase you see today. The original timbers on the ground floor were replaced by stonework.

Wooden panel walls were added to separate the rooms and decorative plaster was inserted over the fireplace in the New Chamber (now displayed at the bedroom).

William Blythe was a Captain in the Parliamentary Army during the English Civil War. He was one of the two officers who were in charge of the demolition of Sheffield Castle in 1648. It is recorded that a “Capt Blithe” paid £3 for “bords and plaster” from the castle. These may have been used to make some of the improvements to the house.

William Blythe died in 1665 having received a free pardon from Charles II for his part in the English Civil War against the Royalists. A copy of the inventory produced on his death also survives. It shows more furnishings than in the previous list, and extra items including books, time-pieces and close stools (toilets) appear. He also possessed more silver than his father.

The house remained in the family for a further 92 years. The last Blythe to live in the house was Samuel, minister at Attercliffe. On his death in 1753 his son sold the house to William Shore. 

Bishops’ House 1753—1974
After 1753 the house was let to a farmer and his labourer. The house was divided into two separates homes. In the east wing the alterations included adding an extra staircase, a dairy, new windows, partition walls and fireplaces. All the current external doors were present at this time.

In 1886 the house passed to the Corporation. Around this time some renovation work was done on the house and the surrounding barns and outbuildings were demolished. No major alterations were made to the house during this time. The house was let to employees of the Recreation Department and their families until 1974.

In 1975 and 1976 extensive renovations to the building and interior took place. For more information and images of the renovation process please see the Renovation of Bishops’ House Find Out More. Bishops’ House opened as a museum in July 1976.

plan 4This plan shows the layout of the rooms in Bishops’ House in 1971 before the renovation project began. The building at this time was divided into two separate houses. The house division is shown by the colour of the room names.

plan 5


 

 

Glossary of terms

Readers may not be familiar with the technical terms used to describe the various components of the building, highlighted in the text. The glossary below describes the terms used.

 

Baluster or balustrade – The vertical supports for a handrail or coping, the whole thing being called a balustrade.

Bargeboard – [corruption of ‘vergeboards’]. These are boards, often carved or pierced [called fretted], fixed beneath the eaves of a gable to cover and protect the rafters.

Binder – A beam which supports or braces the weight of the joists.

Casement – A window which has one or more opening lights which are side-hinged.

Common rafters – Regularly spaced uniform rafters placed along the length of a roof or between principal rafters.

Cross window – A window with one mullion and one transom, forming a cross-shape.

Cross wing – A part of the building, sometimes a later extension, built with its length at right angles to the length of the original building.

Floor beams – A horizontal timber running across the length of a wooden building, part way down the height of the wall, usually to support a floor.

Girder – A heavy timber beam carrying the weight of the binders in a framed triple floor.

Joist – A beam, usually laid as a series of parallel beams, which supports the floorboards, which are usually nailed to them.

Jowl – The enlarged head of a post. A jowl allows a timber carried by the post to be properly located and securely fixed. The shape of all the jowls in Bishops House is that of a graceful flare.

King post – A vertical timber placed centrally on a tie-beam, rising to the apex of the roof to support a ridge-piece.

Mid rail – A horizontal timber running along the length of a wooden building, part way down the height of the wall.

Mullion – In a window this refers to the vertical division, whether of wood or stone, between the opening lights.

Opening light – in a window, the aperture that admits light from the outside.

Oriel – A window, usually a mullion or casement, which projects outward from the vertical face of the building.

Post – The upright timber in a wooden structure.

Principal rafter – The paired inclined lateral timbers of a truss.

Purlin –A horizontal longitudinal timber in a roof structure placed some way up the slope of the roof, which carries the weight of common rafters. They are usually paired, to either side of the peak of the roof, and called side purlins.

Quoins – Dressed or otherwise emphasised stones at the angles of a building.

Rafters – Inclined lateral timbers supporting the roof covering.

Ridge timber or Ridge-piece – A horizontal timber at the apex of a roof, supporting the ends of the rafters.

Riser – On a staircase, the vertical face of a step.

Sill plate – A longitudinal timber at the bottom of a wall which is jointed to the vertical posts at their lower ends.

Splat baluster – A flat [as opposed to round] baluster which has shaped sides.

Stylobate – Strictly speaking, this term applies to the base of a stone column but it has been used here for the stone or stones used to level up at the base of a post.

Tie-beam – The main horizontal transverse timber in a roof structure, which carries the feet of the principal rafters at wall level and also the king-post.

Transom – In a window, the horizontal member separating window lights.

Tread – On a staircase, the horizontal face of a step.

Wall plate – A longitudinal timber on top of a wall which receives the ends of the rafters and is jointed to the vertical posts at their upper ends.

 

The names of Bishops’ House

 

Bishops’ House was never called that until the late 19th century. Before that it didn’t have a particular name. Below is a list of various references with the name of the building, or at least, its site. By the late nineteenth century the name ‘Bishops’ House’ was widely used.

 

1620 – ‘A tenement with all and everie the appurtenaunts in Norton’, from the will of William Blythe 1620.

 1779 – ‘The Abstract of the title to a freehold estate called ‘The Meersbrook Bank Estate’ situate in the Parish of Norton in the County of Derby’ [1879] lists an amount of £0 15s 6¾d for ‘two messauges and lands’ (a messauge is a dwelling house with its adjacent buildings and the lands appropriated to the use of the household) charged to George and Thomas Wild, recorded on the 11th July 1779. This is available in the Sheffield Local Studies Library on Surrey Street ref. 334.1 SSTQ.

 1804/5 – The map of Norton from the survey of W & J Fairbank in the year 1804 and 1805 records field 611, which contains the site of the building as: ‘Homestead and garden’ with an area of 1 rod, 16 perches (0.350 acres) with the tenants as George and Thomas Wild and the landowner as Samuel Shore senior Esq.

 1817 – The Norton Land Tax register of 1817 records field 611 as ‘two homes outhouses and garden’ with an area of 1 rod, 16 perches (0.350 acres) with the tenants as George and Thomas Wild.

 1818 – A report in the Yorkshire Telegraph and ?Argus for 1927 [I only have a copy of a copy of the article & part of the reference is missing] quotes ‘The Northern Star’ for February 1818 (a monthly production) in which the Editor calls it ‘the ancient Mansion at Norton Lees’. Interestingly, the accompanying drawing, by E Blore, is dated 1818 and is identical to the 1823 reproduction that we usually see.

 1824 – Vingettes of Derbyshire (1824) calls it ‘the Hall of Norton-Lees, below Norton, and above Sheffield’ ... ‘an old mansion-house, surrounded by ancient woods, once inhabited by a family of Derbyshire gentry.’

 1832 – The Mirror of Literature, Amusement and Instruction, Saturday, October 27, 1832, p 273/4 calls it ‘Old Hall, in Derbyshire’.

 1841 – The census of 1841 records the building as ‘Norton Lees’ with the occupiers as Joseph White, 45; Saley White, 50; James White, 20; Ann Whitehead, 15 and John Ray, 15.

 1845 – The Plan of the Parish of Norton in the County of Derby 1845 by Paul Bright  records field 653 as: ‘two cottages and garden’ with an area of 1 rod, 0 perches (0.25 acres) with the tenant as Joseph White and the landowner as Offley Shore.

 1846 – Bagshaw’s  History and Directory of Derbyshire, 1846, p 657 calls it ‘an old, ancient, half-timbered house in which are several rare oak carvings, on one of which is a date, W.B. 1627, in good preservation’.

 1857 – White’s History, Gazetter and Directory of the County of Derby, 1857, p 763 calls it ‘an ancient, half-timbered house, in which are several rare oak carvings, on one of which is a date, “W.B. 1627,” in good preservation’.

 1885 – A brief historical sketch of the ancient name and family of BLITHE, BLYTHE OR BLYTH in the counties of Warwickshire, Derbyshire, & Norfolk, by the Reverend William Blyth, M.A. (1885), p 20-21: ‘There were several respectable families at Norton, and one of the principal houses was BLYTH HALL, at the Lees Hamlet, “a half-timbered house, in which are several rare old oak carvings, on one of which is W.B. 1627” – Derbyshire Directory. [This is possibly a reference to the directories of 1846 or 1857].

 1885 – The Sheffield and Rotherham Independent, Saturday 11th July 1885, p 8 calls it ‘Old Hall, Norton Lees’.

 1886 – The Sheffield and Rotherham Independent, Saturday 29th June 1886, p 4 calls it ‘Norton Lees Hall’.

 1886 – Plan referred to in Conveyance to the Sheffield Corporation 25th October 1886. It is called ‘Bishops’ House’. Ref YWD1117 Sheffield Archives.

 1890 – TheSheffield and Rotherham Independent, Tuesday 15th April 1890, p 5 calls it ‘The Bishops’ House’.

 1891 – The census of 1891 records the building as ‘Bishops’ House’ with occupiers as Harry Ryalls, gardener, 33, of Sheffield, Yorkshire, Lucy Ryalls, 28, his wife of Sheffield, Yorkshire and Ann Ryalls, 66, widowed mother of Derbyshire.

It lists James H Cheetham, gardener – domestic servant, 26, of Stoney Middleton, Derbyshire, Kate Cheetham, 24, his wife of Waleswood, Yorkshire and Elizabeth E Cheetham, 1 month, their daughter of Norton Lees, Derbyshire.

 1901 – The census of 1901 records the building as ‘Bishops’ House’ with occupiers as James W Cheetham, Park gardener [non-domestic], 36, of Stoney Middleton Derbyshire, Kate Cheetham, 34, his wife of Whaleswood Yorkshire, their daughters Elizabeth E, 10, Sarah, 8 and Gertrude, 1, and sons Albert H, 5 and Arthur, 3, all of Norton, Derbyshire.

 

It also lists Harry Ryalls, gardener in public park, 42, and Lucy Ryalls, 38, his wife, both of Sheffield, Yorkshire, their son John W, 9 and daughter Charlotte E, 7, both of Norton, Derbyshire. Also listed is William J Colyer, 47, as a boarder. He is a widower. His profession is silversmith, of Sheffield, Yorkshire. [Microfiche ref: RG13/4347 110 Sheffield Local Studies Library on Surrey Street.]

 

Subcategories

You are here: Home History History