All families have black sheep: ancestors who are rarely talked about or are mentioned in slightly hushed tones.  Do we sweep them under the carpet or do we acknowledge them and try to understand why they were as they were?

My maternal grandmother – Granny Brooke – used to mention a family member who was not very nice – someone who drank and was violent. As a child, I got the impression that this was someone in the dim and distant past and he was never given a name.

Granny’s maiden name was Mazey and I knew that her father, Isaac, had grown up in Bingley, near Bradford (as in the Bradford and Bingley Building Society, for those of you who remember that far back).  As an adult, Isaac ran a paper/cardboard mill making mill board.  Mill board is a stiff card that is used for things such as book covers or for stiffening shoes.

Isaac was the second youngest of eight children born between 1851 and 1873 to a Sarah Mazey.

Sarah was born Sarah Randell/Randle in Foleshill, near Coventry in around 1831.  Her father (John) was a labourer and her mother (also called Sarah) a silk weaver.

Sarah followed her mother and became a silk weaver, and in particular made silk ribbons for clothing.

Silk weaving was the primary industry in Coventry at that time, having begun in the 17th century and by the beginning of the 18th century Coventry was the centre of silk ribbon manufacturing in England.  The industry began as a cottage industry with workers (often women) weaving the pieces at home and being paid to produce ribbon of a certain length by a certain time (known as “piecework”).

At some point, Sarah met a local man, James Mazey.  James was also a silk weaver.  He was the son of William and Mary Mazey, and was born in 1825.

Sarah and James clearly intended to get married in 1851 as their Banns of Marriage were posted in May of 1851.  However, there is no subsequent record of their marriage.

Their first child – a daughter, Ann Maria – was born in November 1851 so at the time of their marriage banns, Sarah would have been about three months pregnant.  A census was taken in April of 1851 and we know that the newly-pregnant Sarah was living with her parents at 120 Leicester Street in Coventry.  James, meanwhile was living just down the road with his parents at number 57.

I wonder why they never got married at that point.  Perhaps Jane had misgivings about his character and his suitability has a husband.  Perhaps he was already exhibiting traits that would be consistently shown over the rest of his life.  Perhaps he was already married?  Perhaps he was just marriage-shy.

There was no social media networks as there are today, but James leaves a trace through the media of the day: the local newspapers.

In September of 1851 – just two months before Sarah gave birth to their first child – there is a report of an altercation at James’ home in Leicester Street where James was arrested for assaulting his mother and father.  James attacked the policeman sent to the disturbance with a table leg and it needed two people to get him to the watch house.  For that he was sent to the “house of correction” for two weeks and fined 5 shillings.

In the following decade, James doesn’t appear (from the records anyway) to have got himself into much trouble.  During that time, he and Sarah had two more children – Alfred in 1855 and Sarah in 1858.

However, in 1859 his name crops up again, this time being convicted of assault of a number of co-workers.

Although the silk ribbon weaving industry had largely been a home-based cottage industry, Jacquard looms came to Coventry in 1823 and these were installed in factories to produce ribbons on a more commercial basis.

As in many instances of industrialisation, some workers became dissatisfied with the introduction of the mechanisation of what was considered a craft, and the changes in work practices.

However, as the demand for silk ribbons was high, most workers accepted that there was still plenty of work for everyone.

James’ next recorded altercation with with law arose out of a dispute at work.  James was part of group of piecework workers who assaulted and intimidated two co-workers who had negotiated a weekly pay packet rather than being paid for piecework.  James and some fellow co-workers were upset by this and intimidated and attacked the two co-workers with the aim of getting them to change back to piecework.  James and the rest of the group was arrested and subsequently convicted and sentenced to 1 month in gaol.

1860 was an important year in the silk weaving industry in Coventry.  That year, the government removed all import taxes on silks coming from overseas.  Overseas manufactured silks from outside Britain entered market and the silk ribbon weaving industry in Coventry suffered a severe decline to the point that it virtually disappeared.

This would, of course, impact on the Coventry weavers, and 1860 coincides with a period in which James appears not to be settled.

After 1860, James’ name continues to crop up in the newspapers.  In 1860 he was convicted for breaking a pub window.  Convictions for assault and drunk and disorderly conduct are noted in 1861, 1863, 1864 and 1867 and which resulted in further custodial sentences on two occasions.

Despite this, James and Sarah still appear to be together and we know that Sarah and James did eventually marry, but not until the latter half of 1865, some 14 years after the birth of their first child.  By the time they married, they had six children – Ann Maria, Alfred, Sarah, Oliver born in 1860, William in 1863 and Keziah born only a few months before their wedding in 1865.

Some time in the latter half of the decade the family moved north to Bingley to work in the textile mills there as there would have been more work opportunities in the mills of northern England than would have been for them if they had remained in Coventry.

One would assume that both James and Sarah moved together with the family, but the records we have seem to indicate that James’ relocation was half-hearted.

Sarah had two more children after arriving in Bingley: Isaac born in 1869 and John born in 1873.

In the 1871 census, Sarah is living in Bingley with all her children, including 1 year old Isaac, my great grandfather.  However, James is absent.

If he wasn’t in Bingley, then where was he?  At the end of January 1871, James was convicted of being drunk and disorderly and fined, but because he couldn’t pay the fine he was sent to gaol for one month.  It transpired he had only been out of gaol for two weeks when he was arrested, and in court admitted he could not remember anything.  Perhaps he was in gaol again, although you would expect that to turn up on the records.  The short answer is I have no idea where he was….

We know that James was in Bingley in 1874.  Here is an account of what happened on the night of the 7th May that year:

“James Mazey, a Coventry weaver, whose family have lived for some time at Bingley, was charged with having committed an aggravated assault on his wife on Thursday, the 7th inst. It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner was a man of loose and unsettled habits, and that he had not much regard for his wife or family. Ho hid frequently been away from them for months together, and so bad was his conduct while at home that his wife and children were glad when he went away. Up to Thursday week the prisoner had been away from home for about twelve months. On that day he came to Bingley, and landed at the house, which his wife and family by hard work, and without his help, had been able to keep comfortably together. His appearance was the signal for general dismay in the family, and believing there would be no peace whilst he was there, they left on Thursday night to sleep at the residence of one of the neighbours. The mother, however, had left some trifling thing in a drawer, and she, along with one of the sons, a lad about thirteen years of age, went back to her house to fetch it. Just then the husband seized a poker and struck his wife two heavy blows on the head with it. As the brutal fellow was about to strike a third blow the boy threw a stool at his father’s head and knocked him down. The mother had by this time fallen bleeding and insensible in the street, to which she had escaped when the third blow was averted. The neighbours having been alarmed, medical aid was called, and it was found that the poor woman had received three serious wounds on the head, which each exposed the skull. Yesterday she was still in a very weak state, her head being bandaged nearly all over ; and it was stated that when spoken to about his wife on the night of the assault he said that if she came back to tho house he would cut her throat. The prisoner was committed to the Sessions for trial.

I would imagine the son referred to is Oliver. What an awful thing to have to face.  The account has disturbing similarities to the account of the attack on his parents some 23 years previously.

He stood trial, was convicted and was sentenced to 9 months of hard labour.  It seems a lenient sentence given that, at the same Sessions, a 29-year old man called Luke Paley was sentenced to 14 years penal servitude for stealing a pair of trousers and two coats!!

It seems clear that James was rarely around (and probably for the better).  Fast forward to 1881 and the only record of a James Mazey that might fit the bill is a 55 year old James Mazey living in Coventry – with a lady called Louisa who recorded as his wife……

In 1891, James is living on Macclesfield, Cheshire – another silk weaving town – and still working as a silk weaver.  He is living as a lodger with a widow going by the name of Bridget Smart, along with her family and a number of other lodgers.

His death is recorded just three years later in Macclesfield at the age 69.

James was clearly a troubled man.  On the face of it, he has very few redeeming features.  We do not know, however, what happened in his life that may have contributed to his character.  Alcohol certainly contributed, but was that more of a symptom, rather than a cause.  His children certainly grew into fine adults and prospered – more to do with Sarah than James I would suggest.

Sarah died in 1907.