This from 1861 census, Knaresborough. Michael Coleman, licensed Hawker & family.
https://www.familysearch.org/search/ark:/61903/1:1:M712-ZV8
1881 census for Michael (Unlikely to be same one)
https://www.familysearch.org/search/ark:/61903/1:1:Q275-Y3Z4
Children on 1861 census have MMN of Lemmon & Kelley or Kelly for the younger ones
1881 census, Knaresborough for Ann & some of children. Son Michael is a hawker. Ann listed as a widow.
https://www.familysearch.org/search/ark:/61903/1:1:Q27R-CPNP
There is a death of a Michael Coleman in Knaresborough, 1865, age 44.
https://www.familysearch.org/search/ark:/61903/1:1:661H-8G81
I have gone back to this again despite the fact that I had a message from someone with that record in their tree, claiming the Colemans were well off and they did not know of a John.
Because....
I found a marriage record for Bridget Coleman who could have been "my" Johns sister, and on that record it said her father Micheal was a Hawker. Now on that 1861 census Micheal Coleman Knaresboro the pages you get from
the sites do not have a John in them. BUT if you actually load and look at the copy of the original record there are many more children listed! There is a John , son, aged 20! So because of Bridget's father being a Hawker, I'm going to assume This is "my John. Why are so few of the children listed. There are the following children, Bridget, Margaret, John, Patrick, Micheal, Thomas, Henry, Martin! The record is incomplete without all the children.