I often broaden my family history research into extended branches of my family tree. This can add greater context to the environment and lives of direct family members. In October 2024 I wrote about a potential extended family member who had fallen foul of the law. At the time I commented that another potential ancestor – one of 9 called Herbert Stirland – had been in a similar situation, although probably not as dire as the one involving a Joseph Stirland. I thought I would close this particular loop and tell you about Herbert. I had started my research with a search of newspapers to find reports of any criminal cases. Even though the surname is not all that common, there are many instances of it in the Ilkeston area in the bordering counties of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. It can often problematic to work out which individual is concerned as, in these large families, the same first names are used numerous times in each generation. The Herbert I am writing about is a half first cousin several times removed. Our common ancestors are my 3 times great grandparents William Stirland and Dinah Hofton. As with Joseph, I was able to reduce the number of potential ancestors by checking details of their birth and death against the date when the crimes were reported. Other filters were the location of the crime, the occupation and other details of the individual concerned.

I have been able to link Herbert with my family tree, albeit quite distantly. As mentioned earlier, searching for more distant relations, especially in local newspapers, can often help to build a broader picture of a family. It is more than likely they interacted with direct-line ancestors, especially if they lived in the same small villages.

Herbert Stirland (1838-1908), unlike many of the coalmining males in this extended family, was a grocer in Cotmanhay near Ilkeston. He was the eldest son of Joseph Stirland and Lucy Henshaw; Joseph was also a grocer as well as a flour dealer, according to information on decennial censuses. I had a hypothesis that Herbert had inherited his business from his father, but further research suggested that this was not as clear cut as first appeared.

Herbert was first reported in newspapers when he appeared before the Smalley Petty Sessions in July 1867 charged with trespass by Mr A.M. Mundy in pursuit of game and conies (rabbits). Herbert denied the charge, but did admit that he had a young dog with him which “would not touch a rabbit, although it was able to”. The Magistrates considered that the defendant could not be “in pursuit” of the game and rabbits and dismissed the case.

Herbert had been granted a liquor license in 1876 and in 1882 he was charged with allowing persons to consume intoxicating liquors on his premises during prohibited hours on 26 February. The case was heard at the Derby Petty Sessions on 9 March and reported in the Derbyshire Advertiser and Journal on 17 March. The Bench said the evidence did not prove an actual sale of liquor, but it was very suspicious case. No outcome of the charge was reported.

Derby Mercury 1898 – accessed via British Newspaper Archive at FindmyPast.co.uk

The third case was some years later in 1898 and heard at the Derby Police Court. This case was reported in the Derby Mercury of 1 June 1898. This time Herbert was charged by another grocer of Cotmanhay, John Buxton, for damaging a staple, lock and chain and a back wall. The charge was withdrawn after Herbert paid a penny in damages and £1 5s costs. A further summons for using threats at the same time and place was dismissed.

From these reports I had a mental image of a robust man, who was used to getting his own way. I gained the impression that Herbert was a man who had strong opinions and knew his own mind. With regard to the first charge, as a grocer he may have been catching rabbits regularly and on-selling the results to customers. If this was the case, there may have been a level of local support for his activities. As far as the third charge was concerned, I wonder whether there was some ongoing rivalry between him and the other grocer in Cotmanhay which led to the confrontation between them. The damages payment by Herbert was relatively minor.  

I had come across Wills made by Herbert and his mother Lucy, née Henshaw. Wills are fascinating documents and Lucy made some interesting bequests in her will of 1874, which made me rethink how Herbert came to be a grocer. Lucy was a tenant of the Duke of Rutland and lived in Church Street, Cotmanhay. Her will provided that Herbert inherit her furniture, which she itemized, rather than the business. From details in the Will, Lucy appeared to live fairly comfortably.

I give devise and bequeath to my eldest son Herbert Stirland at the time of my decease, the horsehair seated Mahogany Sofa with pillows to match Also three horsehair seated Mahogany Chairs, three rush seated Chairs, one wooden two armed Chair, one oak chest, the Secretary and the heavy cart.

According to information in census records, other documents and the newspapers, Herbert had always worked in the grocery trade. Lucy may have managed her husband Joseph’s grocery business after his death and it appears she then bequeathed the business and all associated fixtures and fittings to her second son, Joseph, rather than to Herbert.

Little further has been gleaned about Herbert until he died in 1908. He seems to have flourished as a grocer and beer seller and even added the role of sub-postmaster from 1900. He retained his business until he passed away and probate was granted on his will at the Principal Probate Registry on 19 March 1909. This is an interesting read. He left an estate valued at over £2000 at his death. After providing for his widow Elizabeth, Herbert’s assets were to be divided equally between his three daughters: Adeliza, Lucy and Florence. Two of the daughters, Adeliza and Lucy, had married two brothers, William and Arthur Noon who were lace makers. William and Arthur were appointed executors of the will. He had loaned his son-in-law William £80 and Herbert stated that this was to be paid back to William’s wife Adeliza in ‘hotchpot’ manner. According to this term, Herbert did not forgive the loan, but stated that these funds should be returned to the estate before the total was divided among the three sisters. 

These stories about Herbert provide greater insight into the life and times of my Stirland ancestors. They provide a contrast to the majority of my Stirland ancestors who were coalminers, and highlight that individuals can be successful as suppliers of necessities of life such as flour and other grocery items. Exploring the lace manufacturing business of the Noon brothers was an absorbing tangent to researching this branch of the Stirland family; it demonstrates yet again that investigating friends, neighbours and associates can reveal much more about the lives of our ancestors and place them in the context of their life and times.