Old Melbourne Cemetery 2

VIEW OF OLD MELBOURNE CEMETERY
( Source: “Australasian” 25 May 1914 )

There is no entirely accurate record of all the deaths and burials in Melbourne in the 1830s. The first burial ground was located on a hill which became part of the present day Flagstaff Gardens. This was followed in 1838 by a larger area nearby which was to become known as the Old Melbourne Cemetery. In those days all denominations used the one building for holding their religious services and in keeping with this spirit of co-operation the burial ground was originally intended to contain the remains of all denominations even though it was controlled by the Episcopalians. It was consecrated by the Anglican Bishop of Australia, William Grant Broughton on 18 April 1838 while on a visit to Melbourne.

The Presbyterians were said to be unhappy with this arrangement as they did not want their members buried in the same ground as other denominations so they obtained an adjoining block of ground for their burials. This was followed by adjoining land being set aside for other denominations. As a result the Old Melbourne Cemetery became an early example of the type of cemetery containing denominational sections that we have today. It was not until the 1840s that each denomination received a Crown grant giving them ownership of their portion of the cemetery. These grants were issued in the names of individuals prominent within their denomination in trust for the interment of the dead.

William Willis was the Sexton of the Episcopalian section and continued in this position for about 14 years until the early 1850s. In 1881, when he was living in retirement in Collingwood with his son, he was one of the people interviewed by John Joseph Shillinglaw who was seeking to locate the exact location of John Batman’s grave. Shillinglaw had begun a public subscription to erect a memorial over the then unmarked grave of John Batman and fortunately left very detailed of his dealings which are now held by the State Library of Victoria. In his notes, Willis is recorded as saying of the lost early records that they had been stolen, though it is not clear if he had first-hand knowledge of this or if it was something he subsequently heard about. Shillinglaw was able to locate Batman’s grave which consisted of a brick vault containing the bodies of Batman and his son.SKULL OF JOHN BATMAN
(Source: State Library of Victoria).

Another source of information available to Shillinglaw was a letter, written by the then Sexton, Henry R. Johnstone to William Weire in Geelong containing a diagram showing the location of Batman’s grave. This letter, dated 11 January 1858 is now amongst Shillinglaw’s papers in the State Library of Victoria. Johnstone had succeeded John Francis Gillman who was Sexton in the mid 1850s.

About 1867 it was reported that a Constable had been appointed as Caretaker of the Cemetery. This was probably Sergeant Thomas Harold Summerhayes of the Melbourne police whose appointment came to an abrupt halt in March 1872. In 1861 Summerhayes had married a former prostitute named Rosanna Carran. After they moved into the Cemetery Lodge he continued with his duties as a policeman but during his absences his wife used the Lodge as a brothel. On the evening of 27 December 1871 Summerhayes returned home to find his wife with a blacksmith named Michael Kinane. Summerhayes assaulted Kinane causing a head and hand injuries which put Kinane into hospital for a week. Kinane sought to take legal action against Summerhayes for the assault and the case was heard in early March 1872. Kinane argued that Summerhayes had known of his wife’s activities but the case was thrown out of court and costs awarded against him. When details of the case appeared in the newspapers Summerhayes was asked to vacate the Lodge and was given a transfer to Gippsland. However he first spent a week or two at the Richmond barracks while an investigation was made into his conduct. Eventually he was cleared of any wrongdoing and took up an appointment in Sale.**

Summerhayes was succeeded as Caretaker by Maurice Blaney Murphy. Murphy had been landlord of the European Hotel in Swanston Street in 1864 but became insolvent. In March 1872, while he was employed in the Public Works Department, he was temporarily appointed as Caretaker of the Old Melbourne Cemetery and his appointment confirmed shortly thereafter. He appears to have held this position continuously until his death in the Lodge in June 1896. His son, who also lived at the Lodge and shared the duties of Caretaker, was passed over as a replacement and was asked to vacate the Lodge by 19 September 1896 in favour of Henry Richardson.

Henry Richardson lived in the Lodge and occupied the position of Caretaker until about 1910. In 1911 Mrs. K. Richardson was listed as the Catetaker occupying the Lodge, but by 1912 John Leffers had taken charge of the cemetery and accomodation. Leffers had been on the staff of the Health Department and by 1914 was said to have done much to clean up the cemetery grounds as well as establishing a garden and lawn at the Lodge. He appears to have been the last appointment to the position and left about 1919.UNVEILING OF MONUMENT TO JOHN BATMAN 1882
(Source: State Library of Victoria)

Over the years there were many newspaper reports about the cemetery being overgrown and many of the graves being in a dilapidated state. A wooden fence had been built around the cemetery in the 1840s but no fences were erected internally to divide the denominational sections. Large gaps developed in the fence and all sorts of animals were said to be found inside the grounds. There was also said to be a lot of vandalism and criminal activities going on. In 1866 the government allocated money to repair the fence but it remained unspent as no one could be found to do the work. It was not until 1869 that tenders were called for a stone and iron palisade fence and a contractor appointed. A delay occurred during construction when is was found that City Council had proclaimed footpaths around the cemetery to be 20 feet wide. In digging the foundations for the fence it was found that this encroached on some of the graves and a request was made to reduce the width of the outside footpath to 16 feet. The new fence was finished about December 1869 at a cost of about £4,000 and the remains of the old fence, together with some of the equipment used in the construction of the new fence advertised for sale. The base of the new fence was bluestone to a height of about 3 feet 6 inches mounted with iron spikes of about 6 feet in length. At intervals of about every 30 feet the stonework continued upward, into which the crossbars ran. This fence lasted for many years, though in 1910 it was reported that at least some of the fence had been relocated to Murchison Square.

Tenders for the erection of a cottage within the cemetery grounds were called for in 1856 and a contract for £495 awarded to Thomas Grimwood. This cottage or lodge was located in the Jewish Section in the north-west corner of the cemetery. According to one version of what happened to the early records of the cemetery, a fire was said to caused damage to this building in 1865 in which the records were destroyed. However there does not appear to be any evidence from around 1865 for this having occurred. Also, there does not appear to have been any explanation as to why each denomination would have had their records in the caretaker’s cottage at that time. Another version explaining the loss of the early records, attributed to monumental mason John W. Brown, is that they went down in the “S.S. London” in the Bay of Biscay in January 1866. Again, there does not seem to be any explanation as to exactly who the former keeper was who supposedly had possession of them or why. The “S.S. London” was actually on its way back to Australia at the time it sank. However, as even Isaac Selby wrote his book in 1924, the effect of losing these records “. . . is not so important as some would have us believe. True, we have thus lost the location of very many unnamed graves, but there is a very complete Register of Burials in the Victorian Statist’s Office.”

Garryowen quotes George Wanstab, Secretary to the Trustees of the Old Cemetery, as saying that when he took over this position in 1866 there were no records of any kind available to him at the time. This is probably why, in 1867, the Public Works Department required anyone claiming ownership of a burial right in the cemetery to register and provide supporting evidence.

Over the years the Queen Victoria Market has progressively sought to take over the Old Melbourne Cemetery, each time stating that all burial remains would be treated in a sensitive manner and that no further disturbances would be made. One could be excused for being rather skeptical of these claims when one sees reports such as appeared in a Perth newspaper, the “Westralian Worker” on 7 March 1930 “Many bones are being unearthed at the site of the old Melbourne cemetery by a motor shovel which is being used to excavate earth in preparation for the extension of the Victoria Market. Last week more than 20 skeletons were found. A man stands beside the shovel and examines each load of earth before it is taken away to the Melbourne City Council’s filling dump, where two employees of the Council again search the earth. The bones are gathered and stored in a shed on the site. Later they are placed in boxes and buried in the Fawkner cemetery. The old Melbourne cemetery was on the site adjoining the Victoria Market, and the early pioneers of the city were buried there.”

Estimates as to how many people are still buried in the Old Melbourne Cemetery vary between 5,000 (Heritage Victoria) and 10,000 (National Trust). The Melbourne City Council is currently planning to realign Franklin Street so that it passes across the middle of the Episcopalian and Presbyterian Sections of the Cemetery and also do extensive building works on one side of the new street. Many well known identities from the early days of Melbourne are still buried there.( Contributed by Alexander Romanov-Hughes – PPPG Member No. 52 )——o—— 

** Following a query from a reader, PPPG Newsletter editor, Barbara Hawkins located the following article in the Melbourne “Argus” of 6 March 1872:IMMORALITY AND ASSURANCE

“A case in which the unblushing effrontery with which the complainant gave evidence – reflecting as much upon himself as upon any one else – was on a par with his action in bringing the case into court at all, was heard at the District Court yesterday, before Mr. Call, P.M. Michael Kinane, a young man following the occupation of a blacksmith, summoned Thomas Summerhayes, a well known sergeant of police, for unlawful assault. Mr. Duigan, for the complainant, said he should not go into all the matters briefed to him. The plaintiff asserted that he was violently assaulted on a certain night by Sergeant Summerhayes, without provocation, as he alleged.

Michael Kinane, sworn, said that shortly after midnight of the 27th December last he was in the house of Sergeant Summerhayes, at the Old Cemetery, with Mrs. Summerhayes. A girl named Angelina was also present: and witness was standing before the mantlepiece in the front parlour, when the sergeant rushed in, and made a blow at witness with either a neddy or a pair of handcuffs. He beat witness severely, and witness’s head bled profusely. One of the bones in witness’s hand was also broken. He said nothing to witness before or during the assault, and witness called out “Oh, mercy.” He continued beating witness till the front gate was reached. Witness went home with difficulty, and was taken to the Melbourne Hospital, where he remained seven days.

Cross-examined by Mr. F. Stephen: – Witness was a blacksmith’s assistant, and had been in the colony since he was a child. Had known Mrs. Summerhayes about two years and a half and more. First became acquainted with her in Spencer Street, and did not know what she was then. Witness was going out of his own house one night at about 11 o’clock and met the woman, whom he did not know to be Mrs. Summerhayes, and who was calling “Mick.” Witness’ short name being Mick, he asked if she was calling him.

Mr. Duigan said that he had studiously avoided going into these matters, but if the other side went in he should open up the whole matter. The witness continued that he met Mrs. Summerhayes several other times. She used to meet him at his own house. She went down and annoyed him, and he went to her house with her permission.

The witness was asked what he did there, and Mr. Duigan telling him he need not answer unless he liked, he said he did not care about answering it.

Mr. Call, P.M., wanted to know what objection there was and said if the question was pressed he would insist on its being answered, as there was no reason against it so far in law.

After a little discussion, Mr. Duigan said the witness could answer the question if he liked.

The witness continued, in answer to Mr. Stephen, that when he met Mrs. Summerhayes the first time, and asked her if she was calling him, she said, “Oh, I took you for another young man of the name of “Mick,” and witness said, “Perhaps I would do instead.” They talked, and she asked if witness would see her home, and he did so. When witness asked if he would do instead, he meant anything that she would like to take from it, they went home, and something immoral happened. It was at her own house. Witness was a blacksmith’s assistant at that time. The intimacy continued off and on between them up to a short time ago. Witness was not cautioned. Constable Braithwaite told him he ought not to go round that place. Witness did not know for six months that the woman was the defendant’s wife. She never told him not to come near the place, or that she was sorry for what she had done, and wanted him to keep away from there. Braithwaite did not tell him it was notorious what witness was doing with Summerhayes’s wife, and not to go there. But he cautioned witness not to go there. Her brother-in-law (Warne) never cautioned him, nor spoke to him about it. Witness never was told by her in presence of her brother-in-law that she did not wish him to go there. Sergeant Summerhayes did not himself, in presence of her brother-in-law in his own house, caution witness not to come there; but he told witness to leave his house when witness was in once, sitting on the sofa with Mrs. Summerhayes. Witness did nothing immoral that time. Did not go with that intentin that night. He and she were at a ball the night previous, and she asked him to come to the house. Something immoral took place after the ball. Summerhayes ordered witness out of the house, but did not tell him that if he caught him there again he would thrash him. On the 27th December witness went to the house by the invitation of Mrs. Summerhayes for an immoral purpose.

Mr. Stephen: – There’s nothing like being bold, and instead of that you got a thrashing?

(Text illegible) Summerhayes found witness standing in the room, and assaulted him in a brutal manner. Witness told the gentlemen at the hospital that he had been in a row, and that he wanted to avoid the subject, and that he had been in a row, and a man followed him and struck him. Did not mention ‘Summerhayes’ name at all. Witness’ did not bring a woman with him that night to keep watch at the door, to give notice when Summerhayes came home. There was a woman outside whom witness knew (to see her about the place). She was not keeping watch there for witness. Witness told her “If you see Summerhayes coming, sing out.” Mr. Duigan: – Did Mrs. Summerhayes tell you she was a prostitute before she married? Mr. Stephen objected to this witness telling anything she said, and Mr. Duigan said that the other side were anxious to have the facts, and he was getting them out the shortest way.

The witness continued, in answer to Mr. Duigan, that he had always heard she was a prostitute, and known to be such. Witness, of his own knowledge, knew what sort of characters habitually resorted to Summerhayes’ house in the Old Cemetery.

Mr. Duigan stated, in answer to an objection, that his instructions were that he was to prove that this was to the knowledge of Summerhayes. It would be reasonable for a man finding his wife with a person in this manner to assault and perhaps skin a man, but not if he know the wife to be a prostitute and the house a den of thieves.

The witness said he believed it to be to the knowledge of Summerhayes, because he knew a woman who was discharged at the gaol to be at the house. She was the keeper of a house of ill-fame in Romeo Lane, and known to be so to Sergeant Summerhayes. Witness believed she lived there a month in Sergeant Summerhayes’ house after she came out of gaol. Witness had seen prostitutes coming in and out always ever since he had known Mrs. Summerhayes, and when he made her acquaintance he made it as that of any other prostitute. She told him who was single, and a servant there. Witness believed she was, since his acquaintance with her, acting as a prostitute. He had seen her send men into the house when she was with him, and had seen her at the corner of the cemetery drinking rum with men repeatedly. Angelina was a friend of Summerhayes’, and Molly, a man who was there, was there also when the assault took place, and rushed out immediately on hearing Summerhayes’ step. Witness believed Summerhayes had a knowledge that she was on the streets. She told witness she was on the streets when she married him, and that she used to take men in and “bilk” them when she was married. He used to treat her most brutally. She always bad black eyes, and presented an appearance as if ill-treated.

When he cautioned witness, witness could not help going to the house because the wife used to come to his (witness’s) house, and break in the gate, and throw stones, and when she did not go herself she used to send girls and boys. “Witness thought Sergeant Summerhayes knew of the intimacy between witness and her. Thought he must, because he always heard her talking, and she told witness she used to call witness’s name in her sleep. Molloy was a hanger-on about there, and witness made his acquaintance at Summerhayes’ house. Molloy was in the house before the sergeant returned. Witness knew Molloy was a “pal” of hers, and always drinking together, and that the sergeant knew it. He could not help knowing it. On that night witness did not give the slightest provocation to Summerhayes for the assault. He never spoke. The woman who had come out of gaol was, he thought, Mrs. Rogers by name, and that she was known to the police by that name. Summerhayes was there when she was there. Summerhayes used to sleep at the house.

Mr. F. Stephen: – Witness had been to the house since the thrashing, three or four times. Never inside the house: but he met Mrs. Summerhayes outside by appointment, and renewed the intimacy with her; only once, he thought, since the thrashing. Recollected going to some house in Madeline Street with her, and repeating his conduct. That was twice since the assault. That was all, he believed. Did not think of the second time till reminded of it. It was nearly six weeks before he recovered from the effects of the assault, but he was able to go about and act as he had described in the interval.

Dr. Moloney, surgeon at the hospital said he saw the last witness on the 28th December, when he had a couple of superficial lacerated wounds on the head, and several contusions on the head and shoulder blades, and one on the back, as if he had fallen. The index finger of the right hand was broken, possibly in guarding off a blow. A pair of handcuffs might have caused the wounds. He remained in hospital until the 3rd January, and was an out-door patient for several weeks. He stated he was drinking, and he evidently had been. Witness questioned him to ascertain the nature of the weapon used, and understood from him that he had a quarrel with a fellow-workman in the neighbourhood of the Flagstaff Gardens, and was followed and overtaken by this man, who beat him with a neddy. Witness ordered the hair to be shaved off the wounds on the head, but the barber made a mistake and shaved off the whole of the patient’s hair, which was what made his hair so short now.

– Maher, sexton at the Old Cemetery, said that Sergeant Summerhayes lived in a house within the old Cemetery walls, and was gatekeeper, either he or Mrs. Summerhayes acting. A number of disreputable characters, young men and women, came about the sergeant’s house, but he could not say what went on inside. A number of them had black eyes and bandaged heads, and he knew them all by the head mark. Mr. Call: – I should think you will know this man in the same way. The witness said he did not know by whom they were brought. They came themselves. Did not see Summerhayes bringing any girls there; had only heard reports. Mrs. Summerhayes was treated very badly, and got a thrashing now and then, but who gave it to her he could not tell. Almost monthly she was thrashed. These characters could come in at all times by the gate. There was something very wicked going on there sometimes, and he thought he saw Summerhayes with a gun and a sword one time going round in pursuit of someone in the yard. Had frequently seen bad characters about the place, and Summerhayes put one in gaol not long ago. Mrs. Summerhayes was always very civil to him when he had any business with her.

John Kinane, brother-in-law of the complainant, said he knew Mrs. Summerhayes, who used to come to their house.

This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. F. Stephen: – May it please your worships. Mr. Call, P.M.: – We surely don’t want to hear any defence in such a case of base assurance on the part of the complainant. He ought to have prayed most fervently that he was not killed, instead of going back as he did after the thrashing.

Case dismissed, with £3 3s. costs, or one month’s imprisonment.”