George Motley	Anne Haughton Motley	Anne Motley

Behind some of the more grandiose mausoleums and stones along Grove Rd. in Mt. Hope cemetery are a set of beautiful yet slightly smaller in scale plots along the ridge of the hill. I was first attracted to these stones by their beautiful carving. One stone is that of George Motley. The family stone for this plot is a large cross( seven to eight feet tall.) It has a beautiful flower carving in the center with leaves growing out into the for arms of the cross. I can not distinguish any particular plant pictured in the foliage although the flower seems likely to be a rose.

A few feet from this plot is another grave with a large stone pillar. On each side of the pillar is a Celtic cross with Celtic knot carvings along its face. As the carving nears the ground it slowly blends into the stone, so it appears to be growing both out of the stone and the ground below. This is the stone of Albert Haughton Motley. The initial discovery that these two plots were related lead me to find the relationship they had to one another and to look for other plots in the area that might also tie an entire area of stones together. One other plot, that directly in front of the Haughton Motley plot connect to these two; that of the Rogers Clark's. This stone was not a cross but a short long block( three feet high by six feet wide.) It s made of the same thick granite as the Haughton Motley cross behind it and on the left side is a carving of the eternal flame. Standing on the south side of these stones the cross is centered behind and framed by the longer Rogers Clark stone in front of it as though they were meant to be seen together. This connection is that of family, Albert Haughton's wife, Helen is most likely the daughter of the Rogers Clarks.

The Motley and Rogers Clark plots sit on the north side of the MM section of Mt. Hope Cemetery not far from the grave of Frank E. Gannett, founder of Gannett Publishing. Of the three plots, George Motley's, Albert Haughton Motley's and Daniel Rogers Clark's none of the stones have an epitaph. There is no immediately obvious relationship between Albert Haughton Motley and George Motley. So I decided to dig a little deeper.

The George Motley plot is the largest plot of the three. If you approach the plot from the north there are four headstones in a bed of ivy. Behind the graves lies the family marker; a seven to eight foot cross with a floral design. To the east (left) lies two benches and a bush between that frame the plot on that side. To the south are four tall thin fur trees. These three trees frame the cross and also continue to mark the boundaries of the plot. I believe that the bush and the tree are planted their my the family. Their purpose is very much to distinguish this plot from others. George Motley's name is engraved on the south face of the cross. The four people buried there are George, his wife Mary Bates Farley, his daughter Katherine Motley Sage and Anne Haughton Motley.

The real heart of my investigation came from finding and studying the obituaries of the family. Each family member's obituary was different and while none were incredibly revealing these brief statements yield the deceased's social positions. George Motley died on May 25, 1927. His obituary appeared two days later, the day of his funeral, and interestingly enough the same day that reports of Charles Lindbergh's heroic arrival in Paris was reported. His picture appears at the top of the page most likely because he was the president and treasurer of his own company, Moseley and Motley Milling Co. His stern solid face greets the reader. Motley was also an active member of the Brick Presbyterian Church.

To the west of George's grave is that of his wife Mary Bates Farley. Perhaps she kept her maiden name. Or it is possible that Motley is presumed because it would not fit on the stone. While George's obituary establishes him as a business and community leader by mentioning his company and church participation, Mary obituary tells the reader of her relationship with her children and grandchildren. Mary Bates Farley outlived her husband by twenty-one years. Possibly this is also why her obituary lists so many offspring. While George was still working when he died, Mary was much older and her primary role was most likely as a grandmother. She had one daughter Katherine, Mrs. Leon W. Sage, three grandchildren and six great-grandchildren. George's obituary however, does not mention either his wife or his daughter while Mary's mentions that she is his widow. No doubt a sign of the times, there is a strict distinction between these two obituaries in what they deem important to say about the individual depending social position and sex.

Anne Haughton Motley's grave is a mystery. While she is obviously related to the Motley's it is difficult to say how. Anne was three years younger than Katherine and died at Strong Hospital when she was only 27. Her obituary also carries through the seeming mystery of her death. Neither her gravestone nor her obituary mentions who she is, whom she is survived by or even her relationship to those with whom she is buried. Perhaps because she was a young woman, she had not married and therefore when she died so young she was buried with the closest relatives. Strangely, though, that Anne was not buried with her parents. It seems unlikely that George and Mary are her parents because Katherine is referred to as their daughter on her stone but Anne is not. What also makes this unlikely is that she has a second last name that is not that of her mother or her father. In fact she shares here last two names with Albert Haughton Motley which is the clue that fully connects the two plots.

Katherine Motley Sage's obituary a larger amount of information that is included in modern obituaries. Like her mother, it includes her surviving children and grandchildren but information about calling hours, contributions to her memorial and what funeral company is in charge of her services. The modern obituary has become far more practical.

I have been able to find relatively little information about the Albert Haughton Motley, his wife Helen Rogers Clark Motley and her parents Helen and Daniel Rogers Clark. I discerned from the age, placement of the stones and names that The Rogers Clark's were Helen Motley's parents. Unfortunately these stones only give the year of death so I was not able to find an obituary for these four graves. Albert it seems must be closely related to Anne Haughton Motley. I believe from the their ages(he is 23 years older) that he could be her father but this seems unlikely. Why would she be buried with other relatives other than her parents if she wasn't married? It seems more likely that she is a much younger sister. This doesn't explain her relation to George Motley. My first guess is that she is a cousin of the family who was close to Katherine who was only three years older. This has yet to be determined.

This series of stone is a continuing mystery for me. I think it shows how limited the information we leave after death. Despite its seeming importance to the individual, it is impractical for all those but the family. Most of the stones are more likely reminders for the family. This seem most relevant to the George Motley grave site that has two benches for sitting and reflecting. There are so many unanswered questions about the structure of these graves however. How exactly are the two Motley sites related. Why isn't Katherine buried in a plot with her husband? Why do the family's choose ornate gravestones with no epitaph? It is strange, though, that Anne was not buried with her parents.

In a far corner of Mt. Hope Cemetery is the grave of Matthew M. Hall. His plot is fairly large and it could hold five or six graves. The owner has taken the time and money to place a stone and chain fence around the plot to distinguish it from, others and his stone is placed to one side so that perhaps other stones of the family could be place in the site. Only there are no other graves. This might not be unusual if the grave were from the last decade or so, but Matthew M. Hall died in 1850. Matthew died fairly early (43) of consumption. He seems to have been established enough to buy a large plot and nice stone, but perhaps he never had the chance to have the family for which his gravesite was designed.

Located in lot 14 of the W section of the cemetery. The plot sits on the edge of a hill. His grave is beautiful. It is about three feet tall carved in marble. There is no epitaph but a beautiful carving. The grave's top is set like a desk with a large scroll. You can see the ornamental handle rolled inside. It seems to be ceremonial because of its tassels and ornamentation. At first one might think it religious, representing the Torah perhaps but this seems unlikely given the other material on this desk: a small book or notebook about 3 inches by four inches and to the right of it, either a pen or a pencil (acid rain has deteriorated this grave some.) Next to this are other tools, a compass, a ruler and a protractor. These suggest a draftsmen or an architect but no mention of profession is listed anywhere on the stone.

With a little more probing I found a little more information but nothing incredible useful. His obituary lists his town of residence, Seneca Falls and his parish, St. Luke's. This is all that I have been able to fine on Matthew Hall.

My research since the last version of this paper has found another dead end. Upon searching the plot information I found that indeed Matthew Hall is the only burial in that plot. I had hoped to find other family members, perhaps a wife that couldn't afford a stone. What I did find was that Hall's grave was purchased by a Samuel Hoyt five years before Hall's death. Perhaps this is relative or close friend but there seems no direct way to know this. It seems odd to buy a grave, however, well before anyone's death, bury one person of a different last name then yourself there and then not bury yourself or any other close relatives there. What happen to the rest of Matthew Hall's family and for that matter to Samuel Hoyt's?

One part of this investigation has proved fruitful. When I was looking up the plot information with Frank Guillespie he discovered that the deed for the plot has been turned over and that the plot is now the cemetery's. If they choose the cemetery can bury others in that location. So it seems while this story remains somewhat of a mystery that there is the possibility of others' stories filling this ground.

Researcher: Kelly Egan
University of Rochester

Back to the Speaking Stones Main Site