Peter Sayers – WordPress

Tom Sayers

I was ten years old back in 1970 when my dad took me to Highgate to search out the grave of a famous ancestor. He knew roughly where the grave was, as he had been taken there himself as a boy, but now the cemetery was overgrown and almost abandoned. With its Victorian Gothic gates, tilted headstones and angels in dense undergrowth it looked just like a scene you would expect to find in a Hammer Horror movie. Though it was filled with the Victorian great and good, Highgate Old Cemetery on Swain’s Lane now had a bad reputation, with newspaper stories regarding vampire sightings and vampire hunters who visited the cemetery at night to find and exorcise them. Vandals had been at work down in the Egyptian catacombs where coffins rested on open shelves behind iron grilles. Some had been broken into, coffins broken open and partly burned. I was peering through the bars at one such coffin when a disturbed blackbird flew out at me like an angrily disturbed soul and I admit that I almost needed a clean pair of underpants. Finally, dad called out “Here he is!” and I caught sight of a large stone dog lying in guard next to the tomb of his master Tom Sayers.

Tom Sayers, I was told, was a Victorian bare-knuckle fighter and had been champion of the world and was the grandfather of my Nan who was born a Sayers. All the family knew the legend and some of Nan’s cousins were said to have had items that belonged to him, including one of his very broad-shouldered boxing shirts. Many years later I read my Great Uncle’s memoirs. They were mostly about his own wartime experiences as a Japanese POW, but in the introduction, he repeated the Tom Sayers legend. He recalled that on visiting his grandfather during the latter part of his life, he was fascinated that the walls were covered in pictures of Tom Sayers boxing and even of him appearing with a circus. The legend was strong and I wanted to learn more.

After many years searching I think I have finally got there. Or enough at least to understand what the link between my family and the bare fist fighter Tom Sayers actually is. Along the way I have had to take side tracks when the trail has gone cold, but these have sometimes provided a snippet of understanding that has put me back onto the right path. So, apologies if the story is a little long-winded and strays off here and there, but it is difficult to know what to leave out. The link appears to be a man who went under two different surnames during his lifetime, and used two different forenames in combination. His three marriages, eight children and several court appearances have added to the mix.

My first introduction to the ‘full story’ of Tom Sayers was through the book The Great Prize Fight written by Alan Lloyd and published in 1977. This the story of Tom’s career culminating in his most famous fight against the American John Heenan at Farnborough, lasting 42 rounds. There is much available to read regarding this fight and the many that preceded it, so I will not repeat it all here, but a quick look at Wikipedia will give you a good outline. Suffice to say that during a ‘career’ of prize fighting he fought 16 matches with just one defeat. The book also introduces Tom’s family life, which was the main interest for me in determining exactly how we were supposed to be related.

Tom worked as a brick-layer and alternated between his home town of Brighton and London, often making the journey on foot. He is reputed to have worked on the building of Kings Cross station and also the enormous London Road Viaduct that takes the railway into Brighton. It was the hard working and nomadic lifestyle that had led him into fights and ultimately to the Prize Ring. Tom had two children with a woman by the name of Sarah Henderson, who he later married. The first born, Sarah, was named after her mother and two years later Tom junior was born. Being only 15 when they first met, Sarah needed her father’s permission to marry, and that was not forthcoming. They had to wait until Sarah reached the age of majority to marry, so, the children were registered as Henderson.

Interestingly Lloyd states that Sarah’s surname was Powell and that she was a divorcee, unable to marry Tom until the death of her husband. This seems to be incorrect as their 1853 marriage certificate gives her name as Sarah Henderson, as quoted in later books on the subject. While Lloyd appears to have made a mistake with the name Powell, intriguingly it does have a later significance, and it is a mystery as to how he latched onto it.

As Tom’s boxing career progressed, further children were born, but these were the result of Sarah’s liaisons with another man, James Aldridge. A further three children borne by Sarah, Alfred, James, and Charles were all given the second name of Aldridge and were clearly not regarded as Tom’s by their mother.

After the final fight with Heenan a public subscription was raised for Tom’s benefit so that he no longer needed to fight and could retire from the ring. He was so famous and popular among the followers of Prize Fighting that £3,000 was raised, including donations from members of the Stock Exchange and the Houses of Parliament. Formal recognition from the great and good for sport that was technically illegal at the time. Although the money was invested through the guidance of good friends, Tom was uneducated and true friends would have to be distinguished from the hangers-on and those who would take advantage. Tom was allowed to live on the interest from the primary sum, which had been invested in government bonds on his behalf. Luckily, this measure prevented a financial disaster when Tom had an unsuccessful foray into the entertainment business, taking over Howe’s and Cushing’s Circus and the travelling with his own show. Putting on demonstration sparring matches, appearing with performing animals and, with his health failing, cutting a sad figure as a clown. He was the Victorian equivalent of the modern-day Celebrity, earning a living via popular entertainment channels once his own career was over. Putting on demonstration bouts or trading on his fame to attract punters to his travelling circus and, appearing as an act at Music Halls and Theatres or local fairs.

When Tom died in 1865, aged only 39, Sarah went to court to contest his will. It had aimed to leave a legacy to his children the young Thomas and Sarah, but it was not to be. She successfully had them excluded to the benefit of the three Aldridge Sayers children, on the basis that the young Tom and Sarah were born out of wedlock and were illegitimate. The Aldridge Sayers boys were born after she had married Tom and the judge agreed that their separation had not been so complete that the possibility of Tom being their father could be eliminated. Young Tom and Sarah were left penniless and reliant on the generosity of their father’s true friends. As they grew into adulthood, young Sarah married and went to live in Newcastle. Young Tom married and emigrated to Australia, though he too had made the most of his father’s fame, billed as the son of Tom Sayers when appearing in the music halls as a comic singer, or recreating his father’s boxing poses. Tom junior’s only children both died within days of each other. And here lies the problem. With no direct descendants on the male line, no one with the surname ‘Sayers’ can possibly be a direct descendant from Tom.

So where did the story that he was one of our ancestors come from? There seemed to be just too many elements coming from different directions for it all to be just made up. My nan’s recollections of what she was told, plus my great uncle writing about his grandfather (supposedly Tom’s son) and pictures of the circus. Details that I thought would be too specific for someone with just a casual knowledge of Tom’s career to have known about. It was time to go back to square one and follow the ‘evidence’ if there were any.

I started with my great grandmother’s marriage certificate. Married in 1903 to Albert Henry Oxley, she gave her maiden name as Ada Phoebe Powell Sayers. There’s that name Powell again! In his book, Lloyd says Tom married Sarah Powell. Well, we now know he was incorrect, but that seems too much of a coincidence. There surely must be something in it? The certificate also gives her father’s name as Peter Sayers. Well, if he was the son of Tom, then he should also be Tom, so no luck there. Next, I would need to find Ada’s birth certificate. This would not only confirm her father’s name, but also give her mother’s name, which in turn would allow me to find her parent’s marriage certificate that would then quote both of their father’s names etc. The problem was that I could not find any records for the birth of Ada Phoebe Powell Sayers around 1878, the date suggested by her age at marriage.

It was around this time that a new book on Tom’s life was published. Tom Sayers – The Last Great Bare-Knuckle Champion, by Alan Wright. This filled in some more background for me, but as yet, there was no lead regarding any links to my family. Tom’s wife Sarah was correctly identified this time as Henderson and the book gave a more detailed account but sadly, although I managed to borrow a copy at the time, I do not currently have one to refer to.

In the meantime, along came the internet, and as each year passes more and more documents are available and searchable on-line. Instead of having to find the right record office and records to search, a lot can now be done while sitting comfortably at home. No travelling, no having to read through everything in the hope of finding something appertaining to the subject you are searching for, and no wasted efforts when nothing turns up. With nearly everything searchable by name or key word, it is so much easier. While errors can be found in some of the claims made in the early books, it is easy to understand how they might have occurred when things were more difficult.

I started searching other avenues to try to get around this ‘blockage’ of not being able to find my great grandmothers birth certificate. Out of interest I searched for Tom Sayers in the 1861 census. He was easy enough to find, living in St Pancras and the census enumerator had been helpful enough to mark him as “PUGILIST Champion of England” in extra bold lettering. Living with him at 10 Bellevue Cottages was a Charlotte Sayers, 24 years old and listed as his wife and housekeeper. Now, Charlotte was not his wife so far as marriage records go, and being separated from Sarah, it seems he had ‘moved in’ with someone else and they were presenting as man and wife. In the same house was listed a son, 12 years old Peter Sayers! Was this Peter Sayers my Great, Great Grandfather? Tom was 35 years old, Charlotte was 24 and young Peter was 12. Tom had stated he was were born in Brighton, Sussex, while both Charlotte and Peter said they were born in Uckfield, Sussex. It is very unlikely that Peter was the son of charlotte unless she was 12 years old when he was born. There is no record of Peter ever having been Tom’s son, so who was he?

The next step seemed to be to look back ten years to the previous census and see if Charlotte or Peter could be found. Eventually, the best candidates were living in Great College Street, St Pancras. Living in the household of John Sayers, a bricklayer originally from Brighton, was his wife Charlotte and a 3 year old cousin Peter Powell. There is that Powell name again! Charlotte is listed as being 26 years old which is a slight problem, as she effectively became two years younger by 1861! However, as you will see, I wouldn’t take anything that this family said as gospel! My hunch is that Charlotte ‘modified’ her age in 1861. Peter Powell was 3 years old and listed as a cousin. All 3 household members stated they were born in Brighton.

The problem with the census returns is that the enumerator wrote down what they were told, usually by the head of the household. If they answered for all the family, they may not have been certain where everyone was born, just where they thought they were. When looking at births, where a child was born, registered, and then baptised could easily have been different places. They might also have been uncertain regarding ages and they might also not be entirely truthful about relationships if they thought they would be shown in a bad light. The 1861 census is a good example as there is no record of Tom and Charlotte ever being married, even though they said they were. Peter was not their son, as he was presented, and I had my suspicion that Charlotte, although living with Tom as his wife, was actually his sister-in-law.

A search for Peter Powell’s birth led to an entry in the registers for the second quarter of 1847 in Cuckfield Sussex and a later baptism record on the 29^th May for Buxted, just a few miles away. Peter Powell was the son of George Powell and his wife Hannah. It is likely that George Powell is one of deaths of two of that name that occurred in Uckfield in 1848 and 1850. There is a record for a marriage of Hannah Powell in 1851, so there is the possibility that his mother also died, or re-married and decided not to take Peter into the new family. There is some more detailed work to do on this to establish what is most likely to have occurred, but it looks like young Peter was farmed out to a cousin to look after him, and there he stayed.

We now fast forward again to February 1863 when several provincial newspapers, including the Liverpool Mercury and the Middlesex Chronicle carried reports of a disturbance at the Sayers house.

At the Clerkenwell Police Court, yesterday, Charlotte Sayers aged 30 residing at No. 10 Bellevue Cottages, Camden Street, Camden Town, described as of no occupation, was charged before Mr D’Eyncourt with wilfully breaking 20 panes of glass, value 10s, the property of Thomas Sayers, ex-champion of England and Circus proprietor. When the charge was called on it was found that the sheet was not signed with the name of the complainant, but only with a cross, and upon Sayers being asked if that was his he answered in the affirmative.

Mr De’Eyncourt: Do you wish to proceed against your wife for the damage? Tom Sayers: Oh yes. – The defendant (who was showily attired and had on a hat) said: Let him. I am covered in bruises where he has knocked me about, and my arms are black and blue from his ill-usage and he has repeatedly knocked me about. -Sayers then proceeded and said the defendant had been away from home for two nights and on her return, she ill-used him. On Thursday about 12 o’clock she went to his house and made a great disturbance, and then went outside and threw stones through his windows. She broke 20 windows and the damage amounted to about 10s. He wanted the defendant to keep away and not to annoy or molest him anymore, as he was tired of it. She caused a large mob of persons to assemble around his house, and this annoyed him and the neighbours.

The defendant said that she was a married woman, and when her husband left her, Sayers took his place, and had cohabited with her ever since. When he came to her, she had a house full of property.

Mr De’Eyncourt enquired if it was true that the defendant was not the complainant’s wife, and if so, if he intended to live with her anymore. If true it was not very creditable to either party. Sayers replied that it was true the defendant was not his wife. He did not intend to live with her any more, as he thought he had quite enough of it. This was not the first case of the kind.

The defendant said that her husband had left her eight years ago and the complainant and his children came to live with her, and she looked after them. She complained that the complainant on Wednesday returned home under the influence of liquor, broke up her furniture, and threw it into the street, and then threw her out. He told her, after she had taken some of the goods to a little room she had engaged, that if she came on the following day that she could have the rest, and when she went quietly for them, he refused to give them to her. He had now got a watch and chain, some brooches, and other articles belonging to her in his possession.

Mr De’Eyncourt enquired if that was true, and remarked that if it was so, the complainant had better give them up and avoid disputes of this kind. Sayers said there was nothing of the sort in the house; but if there was anything belonging to her there she was at liberty to have it, and more if she required it, as he did not wish to have anything more to do with her.

Mr De’Eyncourt (to the defendant) – will you promise me to keep away from the complainant and not to annoy him? It is not because he has cohabited with you that you are to annoy him, although there is not much to say on either side. The defendant said she would if the magistrate compelled him to give up her goods and also granted her a summons for the assault. On one occasion he nearly killed her, and although he was taken to the police station she would not attend and press charges. She now had bruises on her arms and body from his violence.

Mr De’Eyncourt said there must be no “ifs” in the question. He then ordered her to be bound over in the sum of £10 to keep the peace towards Sayers and all her Majesty’s subjects for six calendar months. -When Sayers left the court, he was followed by a troop of boys.

It was interesting to note that Charlotte who gave her age as 24 in the 1861 census was now claiming to be 30 just two years later. The report confirms that the couple were not married, but there is no hint during the proceedings to any family relationship prior to cohabitation. This is even though she is using the surname Sayers. She seems to suggest that Tom arrived fairly promptly after her husband left her, and if this is the case they must already have been acquainted. Eight years since her husband left would put the date that they started to live together around 1855/56. The final note that Sayers was accompanied by a troop of boys does not sound as though it is meant to be complimentary and puts in mind a group of young hangers-on.

In the meantime, Tom’s ‘real’ wife Sarah was living with James Aldridge and their son James junior had been born in 1860 and another son Alfred in 1862. She would go on to bear Charles in 1864 and Robert in 1866. There was possibly also a daughter Elizabeth in 1865, who might not have survived beyond infancy.

In March 1863, a month after his last appearance, Tom was again in court, but this time with Sarah. From the Berkshire Chronicle: –

TOM SAYERS AND HIS WIFE

At the Marylebone police court, on Monday, Sarah Sayers, the wife of Tom Sayers, the renowned pugilist, was charged with assaulting and annoying her husband under the following circumstances: –

On Sayers stepping into the witness box, Mr Yardley said while looking over the charge-sheet, what is your name? Complainant: Tom Sayers. Mr Yardley: Oh, oh, Mr Tom Sayers. What are you? Complainant: Circus Proprietor. I have been separated from my wife (defendant) about eight years. On Saturday night, about half-past twelve, I was coming from the Brittania Theatre, riding my horse and following my mules, and, when in Camden Town, this lady came and knocked my hat off and struck me in the face. She followed me, and got a lot of chaps she was with to follow up also. I had to give her into the custody of a policeman. All I want is peace and quietness. I don’t want her to trouble me, as I keep the two children.

Mr Yardley: Why did you separate from her? Complainant: Because she got tipsy, and was always kicking up a row.

Mr Yardley: Do you allow her anything now? Complainant: Not now.

Mr Yardley: Why not? Complainant: Because I found out she had committed herself, and then I stopped the allowance.

Mr Yardley: Have you charged her before? Complainant: She has been at Clerkenwell.

Defendant: No, no, not me. That was your brother’s wife.

Mr Yardley: I suppose her recognisance has expired. Sayers: I suppose it has, sir.

Defendant: You can’t say that, for I never have been bound down to keep the peace.

Mr Yardley: What do you say to annoying him now?

Defendant: He comes by the house where I live, and throws off sneers and snacks at me.

Sayers: I don’t know where she lives, and don’t want to know for a thousand years.

Mr Yardley: You must not annoy him in this way. He seems now very indulgent towards you.

Defendants father then became surety in the sum of £10 for her future good behaviour to all her Majesty’s subjects for the next two years, more especially to “Tom”

What had caused Sarah’s outburst? Was it that Tom had stopped her allowance once he had learned of the children born to James Aldridge? With them both living in Camden Town, it would have made the fact that she had already given birth to two of Aldridge’s children almost impossible to keep secret. Did he really leave her because of her drinking, or had she experienced the same behaviours as Charlotte? The ‘secret’ seems to have let slip when Sarah argues that it was her brother’s wife that he had previously taken to court. Tom sates that the incidence took place and half past twelve on a Saturday night and he was returning from the Brittania Theatre. The Era newspaper mentioned Tom in their review of the season’s pantomimes earlier in January 1863 when Tom was appearing at The Brittania Theatre in Hoxton “and the redoubtable Tom Sayers, with his two performing mules, Pete and Barney, make a novel addition to the attractions.” Tom had purchased the performing mules from Howes & Cushing’s Circus and presumably they were the mules he was leading home after their performance. There is no explanation as to what Sarah was doing out at that hour, but presumably drinking.

Books about Tom’s life suggest that Sarah was either thrown out by Tom when he found out about her affair with Aldridge, or that she simply left Tom when she found she preferred Aldridge. The first Aldridge Sayers child was born in 1862. Two years after Tom’s most famous and last serious fight and around six or seven years after she and Tom separated. Was Aldridge really on the scene that long before they decided to have children? A November 1857 newspaper report contained in the Era may shed some light. In the Law & Police section, listed under Clerkenwell is the following account.

The ”Champion of England” – Thomas Sayers, the well known Pugilist and, at present the Champion of England, attended before Mr Corrie, at the instance of the parish authorities of Saint Pancras, charged with refusing to support his wife, Sarah Sayers. Some facts connected with this case have already appeared, from which it will be recollected that Mr Birchmore, the relieving-officer stated that the defendant had refused to support his wife, and that she had, therefore, become chargeable to the parish, and was now an inmate of the workhouse. The defendant refused to support his wife on the ground that she had committed adultery, but took his children away, and well looked after them. Some witnesses were called by Mr T Wakeling for the defence, who proved that a number of men had been seen in Mrs Sayers’ room at all hours of the night, and that she was a very drunken and dissolute person. Mr Wakeling proposed now to call Sayers’ child, a girl about seven years of age to prove that strange men had been seen in bed with her mother. Mr Corrie said that he would not examine a child so young, and would take it upon himself of refusing her evidence. He would adjourn the case for any time that would suit the defendant. Mr Wakeling asked for an adjournment for a fortnight. Mr Birchmore had no objection to an adjournment, but was prepared to have the case decided at once. He should be able to show that Sayers had visited his wife lately. The case ultimately was adjourned for a fortnight.

Was Sarah really as bad as painted, or were witnesses specially selected to say the right things? The accusations were not about Aldridge by name, if he were yet on the scene, but related to a number of men. When Sarah assaulted him six years later, was it pent up anger that she ended up in the workhouse because he would not financially support her? We will never know.

Now against this background of matrimonial unrest, separations, assaults, court cases, adultery etc, where was young Peter Powell / Sayers? He makes an appearance in June 1865, unsurprisingly in another court case. On this occasion he was named as George Powell. George was the name of Peter’s father and in later life he used the name of Peter George Powell Sayers on registration certificates. It is quite possible that the reporter missed his first name and wrongly reported it as George, but given the circumstances described I am certain this is Peter.

On Friday June 16^th the Birmingham Daily Post and other provincial newspapers carried reports:

At the Clerkenwell Police Court, yesterday, George Powell (17), a piano-forte maker, was charged with stealing a coat and telescope, the property of Tom Sayers, the ex-champion of the pugilistic world. Thomas Sayers said he resided at 51, Camden Street, and had kept the prisoner for the past twelve years, and had paid for apprenticing him. About four or five weeks since the prisoner left him, taking with him a coat belonging to him. On the day previous he went to the place where the prisoner was employed and saw the prisoner wearing his (prosecutor’s) coat. He afterwards gave the prisoner into custody, and on searching his box found a telescope belonging to him, which had been taken from his premises. In cross-examination Sayers said: I cannot write. The prisoner is not a nephew of mine, nor is he any relation. He has not gone by the name Sayers. I took him into my house out of good nature. I know him by being related to his mother. I don’t know his age, whether it is fifty or twenty. I can’t form any idea as to his age, and I can’t say whether he was five or fifteen when I took him. He was living with my brother when I took him. He was living with a woman that I lived with. Since he has left me there has been a summons issued against me for his keep. I used to find him in clothes, but I never gave him the coat in question. I will swear that for the last eighteen months he has not been wearing the coat, although I can’t say when I last saw it. I have not seen the telescope for more than twelve months. I have not preferred this charge out of spite, although I have not a very good feeling towards him. I never saw the summons that was issued against me. The prisoner’s mother does not cohabit with me. I should have given the prisoner into custody before, only I was in the country with a circus. Police Constable Jarmin, 495S, said he took the prisoner into custody and when he told him the charge he said “All right; I will go with you.” Mr Lewis, solicitor, said he should not trouble the magistrate with any remarks, as he must see that the charge was preferred out of feelings of spite, but should call a witness who would prove that the prisoner had been wearing the coat for the last eighteen months. -A witness was called, who confirmed Mr Lewis’s statement, and added that the prisoner was highly respected at the firm in which he was employed, and was a steady, sober, industrious young man. -The magistrate said he should discharge the prisoner, who would leave the Court without a stain on his character. -Mr Lewis said he should bring an action against Sayers for false imprisonment. – When Sayers left the court, he was loudly hissed and jeered.

Reading between the lines it would appear the summons for upkeep payments for Peter caused Tom to retaliate with a charge of theft and once again result to court action to try to make a point. The reaction of the courtroom with jeers suggests Tom’s popularity was waning. . A new book about Tom’s famous fight with Heenan was published in 2008. Ther Lion and the Eagle by Iain Manson. This has proved to be the most reliable to date and the author also ponders the identity of Peter Sayers and George Sayers, and like me, suspects that they are one and the same person. I corresponded with the author and we exchanged new information, so if it is ever updated and reprinted it might shed some more light on Peter/George.

Tom’s health was failing him and five months later, in November of the same year he died of tuberculosis consumption of the lungs.

Tom’s funeral was attended by thousands who lined the route and followed the procession from Camden Town to Highgate cemetery. “The funeral cortege consisted of a hearse drawn by four horses, preceded by a stand of feathers and a brass band, which played the Dead March in Saul, and six mourning coaches, followed by two private carriages.” The chief mourners included his children Thomas and Sarah, his father, and other family members and friends. I have not seen any mention in reports of his wife Sarah, or of Charlotte Sayers, nor her husband, his brother John Sayers. I am sure they would have been present somewhere, if only in the crowds. The report in the ‘Era’ also states “we are sorry to record that despite the strenuous exertions of a numerous body of police, a large party of roughs obtained admission to the burial ground who behaved in a very disorderly manner.”

All the provincial newspapers carried reports and one from the Shields Gazette provides and interesting ‘outsiders’ view of the crowds. The reporter mistakenly refers to Tom’s dog Lion as a Bloodhound rather than a Mastiff, but is obviously struck by the spectacle: –

I have just hurried down from Highgate to bring you a brief account of the Funeral of Tom Sayers… I took a stroll up Camden Town but my progress was arrested long before I could catch a glimpse of the plumed hearse. The pavements were chocked and the street, with the exception of the portion required for the traffic was crowded…. The High Street of Camden Town, for a distance of three-quarters of a mile, was lined with the S and A divisions of police. The shops, so far as they extended along the route – namely, through a length of three miles, were closed. Take away the large area of Trafalgar Square from the line of Lord Palmerston’s funeral procession, and I hesitate not to say that the numbers present today to look at the hearse of the ex-prize fighter more than doubled those that came to look on that of the late premier. But the class of spectators! The roughs made but an infinitesimal of the crowd that lined the streets from Cambridge House to Westminster; today the roughs were in an overwhelming majority. All the bricklayers of London appear to have taken an entire holiday. Everywhere I turned I saw tawny yellow jackets, caps and trousers. The blue aprons of the butchers showed frequently. Red coats were very sparse, soldiers as a class seemingly not believing in “war to the knife.” Women and children turned out numerously – tradesmen’s wives they for the most part appeared to be. A group of these latter, by their un-whispered talk, gave me and all the bystanders much information concerning the domestic and private affairs of the deceased.

Of the procession itself: –

In front came a rabble of the off-scourings of London, such as follow the Lord Mayor’s procession, then a strong body of the A Reserve, after which the band of the S division of police in plain clothes playing the Dead March; then came the plume bearers and the hearse, heavily plumed, yet not so as to appear overladen. The hearse was drawn by four horses and its tout ensemble was strikingly elegant. Then came the chief mourner! I have seen many solemn pageants. A simple rural funeral touches my heart far closer than the pompous pageantry that conveys the honoured great to their narrow home; but never before was I so much moved on such occasions as today. The unexpectedness of the spectacle had greatly to do with my emotion. Tom’s chief mourner was his dog, his large muscular bloodhound! Every Londoner knows Tom’s little pony trap in which he used to drive about, his bloodhound by his side. The little pony and trap followed immediately upon the hearse; over the pony’s back was thrown a pall of velvet. On the seat reclined the dog, its collar muffled with crape, hanging its head in sorrow (I am not putting this in to up sentiment, it is fact)….The pony was unled and the dog the only occupant of the little chaise. Had I seen this sight at a country funeral, I would have been less moved, but to me the spectacle overflowed with pathos. There in the densely crowded street – windows crowded, house roofs crowded – passed along in silence and in sorrow, raising neither eye nor head, unconscious, apparently, of the throng , the one brute thing whose whole heart was with the dead.

Peter Sayers had already lost his father at a young age and now the man who had once supported him, though had recently turned against him, was also gone. Peter was by now 18 years old and his apprenticeship had allowed him to earn his own living as a Piano Forte maker. Piano manufacturing was a big industry in Camden Town and employed many specialist trades from the obvious carpentry, to the manufacture of ivory keys and various metal fittings that supplied the piano factories, both large and small. Tottenham Court Road not far away was also a centre of furniture makers, using many of the same skills and trades.

At the age of 21, Peter married Emily Anne Jay. He had reverted to using his Powell surname. Their first son named Thomas George Powell was born in 1870. The family have proved to be somewhat elusive in the 1871 census, but there is a 1 year old Thomas Powell listed as a visitor at an address in Great College street Camden Town and Peter Powell aged 23 listed as a visitor to a George and Rebecca Reed in Maresfield, Uckfield, Sussex. So there is the possibility that he was visiting family back in his home village and had left the child with family or friends.

By the time of the 1881 census the family were living at 47 Ashdown Street in Kentish town. Peter and Emily were now both 30 and Peter’s occupation was still Piano-Forte maker. He gave his place of birth as Brighton and Emily’s as Lambeth. There were now four children. Thomas was eleven, Peter four, Ada (my Great Grandmother) two years old and John 3 months. They were now all using the surname Sayers.

A new search for my Great Grandmother’s birth certificate, now using the alternative Powell surname, finally had a result. Born in 1879 in Kentish Town, she was registered as Ada Phoebe and her father’s name was given as Peter Powell and her mother as Emily Ann, formerly Jay. Their address was given as 36 Malden Road Kentish Town. For some reason between 1879 and 1881 Peter had decided to use the Sayers surname again.

Living nearby in 1881 was Charlotte Sayers who was head of the household at 5 Melton Street, St Pancras. She gave her status as ‘widow’ which seems not to be true as ‘separated’ would have been a more accurate statement. Her occupation was Tobacconist and she confirmed that she was born in Buxted, Surrey. Also in the household was William Olrod, 54, a widower and Piano Forte maker who was listed as a boarder. Another boarder was James Otzen a 64-year-old widower working as a Waterman. Also listed as her granddaughter was Emily H Sayers, a school girl aged 9 who was born in London.

I strongly suspect that Emily was a daughter of Peter and Emily who was being looked after outside of the family home, often done to ease pressure on space and finances. If Charlotte had looked after Peter when he was younger, granddaughter would have been the easiest description to have used. The gap in age between the children Thomas and younger Peter would have suggested at least one child missing from the family home.

I say the description of ‘widow’ to be inaccurate due to press report on the mysterious death of John Sayers that appeared in the Islington Gazette four years later in 1885.

“At the coroner’s court Holloway Road on Friday Dr Danford Thomas held an inquest on the body of John Sayers, aged 63 years, who died at 15 Lyon Street under the following circumstances: – Deceased was said to be the brother of the celebrated Pugilist Tom Sayers. Inspector Dodd appeared on behalf of the police. Mrs Charlotte Sayers, wife of the deceased, said the latter was bricklayer. Witness had been separated from him for some time; but a few weeks before death he called upon her and said he had been knocked on the head with a stick by a man named Warwick”

In 1891, Peter’s wife Emily died at the age of 43. This is the same year as the next census was taken and again the family have been difficult to find. With Emily’s death and Peter having at least four children to look after, they could have been farmed out to family and friends to help. There is an Ada Sayers, age 10, listed amongst the inmates of the Islington Upper Holloway Workhouse School in Hornsey Road.

In December of the same year,1891, Peter re-married in St Marks, Regents Park, on Christmas day. Giving his full name as Peter George Sayers, a 43-year-old widower and a Piano-Forte maker, he married 40-year-old widow Katherine Strong. They both gave their address as 26 Clarence Road. Peter gave his father’s name as Tom Sayers and his father’s profession as ‘Professional Boxer.’ One of the witnesses to the marriage was Charlotte Sayers, who seems to have still been around and close to the family. They both appear to have been aware of Peter’s little ‘untruth.’

True to form, Peter once again appears in court in 1899. Reports appeared in several provincial papers and seem to be written to amuse. I cannot see such stories being taken the same way today and there seems to be an echo perhaps of Tom Sayers physical abuses. This example is from The Daily Telegraph.

Second Marriages – Before Mr Plowden at Marylebone, Mrs Catherine Sayers, of Tufnell Park Road, summoned her husband, Peter George Sayers, of Little King Street, Camden Town, for assaulting her on the 7^th inst. Complainant, on the night in question, went to meet her husband as he returned from work, in order to get his wages. She missed him, but subsequently found him at a public house, asleep in front of the bar.

Mr Plowden: Did you wake him up by kissing him or giving him a dig in the ribs? (Laughter).

Witness: (Smiling) said she adopted a third method. She drank some whisky at his suggestion, and then, without the slightest provocation, he threw some liquor into her face, struck her face with the glass, and kicked her. He ran out of the house, and she had not seen him since until now.

Mr Plowden: Now come, did you not say something nasty to him? Witness: No I did not; he was in a temper.

How long have you been married? – Seven years. And it’s a dead failure, is it? – Yes it is. Second marriages always are. I think.

Mr Plowden: Oh, it’s a second marriage, is it? Defendant: (interrupting): I’m awfully sorry for what I have done, I wouldn’t hurt a hair of her head. Mr Plowden: You set a high value upon her hair? Husband: Well you know, I wouldn’t part with her for the world. Mr Plowden: (to the wife) That’s not bad for a second husband? (laughter). What do you say now? Wife: (with a smile and shake of the head) That’s not what he says and does at home.

Husband: You see there’s two families and the children don’t agree. I’m thoroughly ashamed of myself.

Mr Plowden: (to the wife) Will you forgive him this time? Wife: Yes, if you will bind him over. That’s if there’s no chance of a separation. I shan’t live with him again. Mr Plowden: There is a chance, but at present it is not very hopeful. The defendant was bound over in £20 for the next six months.

It seems that Peter’s wife did return to live with him as the 1901 census has them both still living together, at 72 Gaisford Street, St Pancras, but without the children!

At number57 Fortess Road, in presumably rented rooms with 3 families living in the house, Peter’s son John is named as head of the household aged 21. His sister Ada (my great grandmother) is 22, but not counted as the head. John’s occupation is Syphon cleaner (Idris’s) and Ada has her occupation marked as ‘labels bottles’ also at Idris’s. The Idris factory in Camden Town manufactured Soda water, Lemonade, Ginger Beer and other soft drinks. It was a large concern and well regarded as an employer in the area. Living with them was younger sister Corrie (presumably short for Caroline) and the youngest child Florence, just nine years. Neither Corrie or Florence are listed as scholars, but Florence would have been attending school and maybe Corrie kept house and looked after her younger sister while the older children worked. All the children are listed under the surname Sayers.

In 1901, not all the children are accounted for at that address. Other children must have been elsewhere, either having left home, or staying with relatives or friends. The full line up seems to have been: – Thomas (1870); Emily H (1872); Charlotte (1873); Peter (1878); Ada (1879); John 1881; Caroline (Corrie 1885); Florence (1889):

Charlotte had already left home by 1901 after her marriage to George Hutchings in 1896, when she gave her full name as Charlotte Eliza Powell Sayers, her age as 23 and her father as Peter George Sayers, piano forte maker.

Caroline’s later marriage in 1902 under the full name Caroline Powell Sayers gives her age as 18 and states her father is Peter Sayers, piano forte maker. She gives her address as 105 Gaisford Street and looks to have added a year or two to her age.

Ada was married to Albery Henry Oxley in 1903, giving her name as Ada Phoebe Powell Sayers and her father’s name as Peter Sayers. The marriage was witnessed by Peter Sayers (either her father or brother) and her sister Florence Sayers.

By 1909, daughter Emily has already been married and widowed. She married for a second time to a widower, 40-year-old David Gardiner and like her sisters, she gave a variant of her father’s name as Peter Powell Sayers, piano forte maker. One of the witnesses to the marriage was her sister, now Ada Oxley.

So far, variants of Peter’s name on various documents and in press reports have been Peter Powell, Peter Sayers, Peter George Sayers, and Peter Powell Sayers. Some, if not all, of his children have been given the name Powell as a middle, or additional name, though none seems to have chosen to use it in a double-barrelled form Powell-Sayers.

The 1911 census gives the next snap-shot and finds Peter at the age of 65 living at 20 Grange Road, St Pancras and still working as a piano forte maker. He is now living with his 3^rd wife, 50-year-old Alice Sayers and they have been married for eight years. The local electoral register tells us that he is living on the top floor of number 20, in one room, unfurnished, at a cost of 4s 6d a week. The following year he moved to number 50 Dalby Street, where he rented a front room on the 1^st floor.

His son Peter junior is living in Dalby Street, Kentish Town and is working as a veneer preparer. Peter is married to Lilly and they have a new born son, also named Peter and a 1-year-old daughter Violet.

Son John is living in Charrington Street, Oakley Square, Somers town, St Pancras and is working as a coal porter. He has been married to Lillian for six years and the enumerator has taken the surname to be Powell-Sayers and applied it to Lillian, as Lillian Daisy Powell-Sayers, and the same to the children Emily Doris age 5 and Thomas Cornelius age 2. A further child, John Richard Powell Sayers was born in 1913.

When war came in 1914, John joined the 7th (Service ) Battalion, Northamptonshire Regiment, service number 14232, and his military records show his name without the hyphen. He must have volunteered, as a married man of his age would not have been required to serve, and even so conscription had yet to commence. He entered France on 1st September 1915. He died, aged 35 years, on 27^th September 1915 at the Battle of Loos and as he has no known grave. He is commemorated on Panels 91-93 of the Loos Memorial at Loos-en-Goohelle, Departement of Pas-de-Calais, France. On 20th November 1915 his widow received his £2-10s-7d back pay and on 6th September 1919 a war gratuity of £3-10s-0d. He was posthumously awarded the 1915 Star, the 1914-1918 War Medal and the Victory Medal. John would have been my grandmother’s uncle and it surprises me that I can never recall any mention of him, or that he died in the Great War.

By 1914 Peter had moved to Chalk Farm and was living at 114 Gloucester Road where he remained, renting two rooms on the second floor, unfurnished for 7 shillings a week. It was here that his grandson ‘Bill’ Oxley remembered visiting him in the 1920s. Bill was struck by the pictures on the walls featuring Tom Sayers in boxing matches and performances in the circus. Presumably these were copies of those carried in the newspapers of the 1860s. Bill was the son of Peter’s daughter Ada and Albert Henry Oxley. (He was also my nan’s brother). Albert was a Dining Car Attendant on the London & North Eastern Railway (LNER) running out of King’s Cross to Edinburgh. Bill recalled “As little kids, Grandfather Sayers used to come around to see us at the buildings that we called home, every Sunday morning. He would have a cut off the Sunday joint, collect his two bob that mum gave him, also cigar butts that dad collected on the royal Trains. He would then make his way home to Chalk Farm where he lived with Grandma. Now Grandfather and Grandmother used to live in one large room in Chalk Farm. On all the walls surrounding the room were photos in frames of the Great Fighter in a circus, riding bareback horses, in the ring, sparring and on the road, running. John and me used to stare open mouthed, elated. We were magnetised to those wonderful photos and how proud we felt when we knew that our mum was related.”

My Nan also told me about “old man Sayers” visiting them at “the buildings” which was actually flat 6 in number 242 Great College Street. The group of late Victorian or Edwardian flats still stand in Kentish Town. Nan recalled being terrified as the family all hid under their kitchen table during the Great War when zeppelins were flying overhead on bombing raids. She also remembered that her dad was not particularly nice to “old man Sayers”, was very rude to him and thought him a scrounger. I think she felt sorry for him.

Peter Sayers died in 1932 at the age of 86. Looking back at his life, you cannot say it was uneventful. Orphaned at an early age and taken in by Charlotte, the sister-in-law of the Great Tom Sayers, he then went on to live with him like a stepson. Tom supported him with a roof over his head and paid for his apprenticeship but ended up in court accused of stealing when things turned sour. He married three times, having eight children with his first wife. He was taken to court by his second wife for assault, and suffered the loss of one of his sons in the Great War. Born Peter Powell, he used combinations of Peter and George and then when it suited, used the Sayers surname, eventually settling upon it and claiming Tom as his father. Certainly, he must have sold that story to his second wife as that was stated on their marriage certificate. Maybe it earnt him a few pints down the pub and he traded on it perhaps knowing that Tom’s real son was ‘out of town’ and no-one was likely to question it, especially given Tom Sayers confused and murky private life.

There is a later post-script to the story. In the early 1980s my uncle worked at a motor repair business in Highgate. He would spend his break time browsing some of the local antique shops. One day he came across two framed photographs of an old gentleman wearing what was claimed to be Tom Sayers’s coat and posing with a bust of Tom and some other trophies. He of course had to buy them. The photographs were dated 1920. But for the fact they appear to have been taken by a Brighton photographer, I would love to imagine that this was the coat that was the subject of the court case and this is actually Peter Powell-Sayers. It is just a shame there is no telescope in the photographs to clinch it.