Keziah Beal was twenty eight years of age in January of 1877 when she was described as being ‘a woman of medium height, thin with a light complexion.’ At the time she had escaped from Wadsley Asylum and in most of the reports she was simply referred to as ‘the missing lunatic.’ This was a title more in keeping with societies views of such people at the time. It seems that she was well known to the authorities as this was her fourth escape from Wadsley. As a result, a notice was placed in the Sheffield Daily Telegraph dated Tuesday 23 January stating that Keziah had run away at sometime in the evening of 4 January. The report asked for news of her, as it seems that she had escaped through a window in that institution.

On previous escapes, Keziah had been quickly traced as she tended to head towards her parents house at Deepcar, Sheffield. However on this occasion she was still missing by 20 March. Her father, James Rydel appeared to care for his daughter as he also inserted a notice requesting that ‘the smallest clue to her whereabouts will be most eagerly and thankfully received.’ Sadly on this final escape the case did not end well, as it was another three months before finally her decomposing remains were discovered in a drift pit at Deepcar on 14 June 1877. It was quickly apparent that her decomposing remains had been in situ for the whole six months that she had been missing.

As a result, the Coroner, Mr D Wightman held an inquest at the Royal Oak, Deepcar on Friday 15 June 1877. However there was little he could do as there was no official from Wadsley Asylum present at the enquiry. Therefore the coroner was forced to adjourn the inquest to the following Monday 18 June. It seems that Keziah had first been admitted to the asylum around the beginning of 1876 suffering from what was termed melancholia, which we would now call depression. At first she was placed in the sick ward, but after making threats that she intended to escape as soon as she could, she was transferred into the refractory ward.

This was a punishment ward situated on the floor above the sick ward, and used by inmates who were known to be disobedient or disruptive. However once Keziah threatened to throw herself out of the window, asylum staff were forced to put her back in the sick ward again, so that she could be constantly monitored. At the resumed inquest, the first witness was her father James Rydel and he told the coroner Mr Wightman that his daughter was the widow of a deceased labourer called Luke Beal. The witness admitted that he had been unable to definitely identify the body, due to the state of decomposition, but he had no doubt that it was his daughter.

One of the nurses at Wadsley called Mildred Hall told the inquest that she had identified the body, as it was wearing clothes which had been issued by the asylum. She told the inquest that she had been in Keziah’s room around 7.30 pm on the night she disappeared. Mildred described how she had gone to the kitchen and about twelve minutes later was told that her patient had gone. It seems that some workmen had been replacing some new panes in the window and Keziah had cleverly removed the still wet putty from a window after workmen had gone. Cleverly she had done this during the day time when staff were still about. Once it had grown dark, she had removed one of the panes and made her escape.

The coroner then questioned Mildred about a previous attempt which her patient had made. She told him that on that occasion, Keziah had climbed through the iron railings of the exercise yard at Wadsley. Once free, she was obviously making her way towards her parents house at Deepcar once again as she had been found at Stocksbridge. The nurse Mildred told the coroner that upon hearing that the patient was missing in January she had gone to her parents house. There she spoke to her mother and asked her if her daughter was there as she wanted the asylums clothing back, but Mrs Rydel knew nothing about her daughters whereabouts.

Dr Mitchell the Medical Superintendent of Wadsley stated that after this latest attempt he had gained discharge papers for Keziah as being too difficult to contain her safely. He explained to the coroner that due to her many attempts to escape she had displayed real cunning. The superintendent added that ‘in that respect she was of very sound mind.’ He went out to explain that once he had heard that she was missing he had sent twelve nurses out to look for her and to bring her back. He had high hopes of finding her as there was a thin layer of snow on the ground. They managed to trace her footprints to the boundary wall, but they could not be traced any further.

Mr Wightman then enquired as to why Keziah’s parents had not been notified that she was missing for four days after she had gone. Dr Mitchell said that as her footsteps to the boundary wall pointed in the direction of her parents house, he assumed she was, once again with her family. He reminded the inquest that she had always headed towards Deepcar on similar attempts. He added that at the time he was in possession of her discharge papers which had been dated 15 December, so he assumed that the law would allow her to stay at home.

When it was time for the coroner to sum up, he told the jury that he was satisfied in his own mind that the asylum was conducted on proper lines. Mr Wightman said that the evidence had shown that Wadsley Asylum was ‘conducted with all the care that could possibly be.’ He emphasised that ‘no more care could be possibly taken to prevent the escape of lunatics generally.’ The jury consulted before returning a verdict that Keziah Beal had died from cold and exposure, being at the time, a person of unsound mind. However they added that whilst no one was to blame, they felt that Dr Mitchell should have warned Keziah’s parents sooner then he did of her escape.

The Sheffield Daily Telegraph dated Monday 13 September 1886 held an exiting account of a capture of a thief by a hotel landlord. He was Mr Richard Elliott who, at the time, was the proprietor of the Black Swan, Snighill, Sheffield. The hotel was a thriving business and consequently the staff were quite busy on the night of Friday 10 September around 8 pm. Elliott was busy serving in the smoke room, when he saw a thirty five year old man he knew called James Richardson enter the bar. The landlord’s antenna was immediately aroused, as he was convinced that the same person had carried out a burglary at the hotel three years previously.

So, when Elliott saw the man go out of the bar and head towards the men’s toilets, he told the barman and a waiter to quickly follow him. The two men saw the customer enter the men’s toilet, which was situated at the bottom of the stairs leading to the bedrooms. They waited and watched, hiding behind a large cupboard. Their wait was rewarded when they saw Richardson come out of the toilet and proceed quietly upstairs to the bedrooms. Elliott meanwhile was still serving in the bar when a few moments later, he heard a loud clattering noise coming from outside in the yard. Handing the customer his pint, the landlord rushed outside to find Richardson sprawled out on the cobbles.

He had obviously jumped from one of the bedrooms, as one of the windows was still open. To his great annoyance, the hotel proprietor saw it was the window to his own bedroom. The burglar was now groaning in pain, as his captor most unsympathetically pulled him to his feet. Richardson cried out, but showing little sympathy, Elliott told him ‘you are alright, the only mistake you made is that you have come here once too often.’ The police were called and the prisoner was confined in a back room until an officer arrived. When Elliott went to his own bedroom, he could not help but notice that the top drawer of a chest of drawers had been jemmied open and some of the contents missing.

Thankfully it was not long before Detective Baker arrived and he and the landlord took the thief into custody. Arriving at the Charge Room at the Town Hall, the prisoner was searched. Elliott was almost dumbfounded by the number of items which were found on Richardson. He told Detective Baker that the man must have been a most accomplished burglar as he had only been upstairs ten minutes at the most. Placing the items in the small pile, they found a cigar case, a pair of glasses, a purse containing three foreign coins and some cuff links, items which were later calculated to the value of £80. Elliott told the prisoner ‘I have been waiting for you for two years. You are the same man who robbed the house once before.’

Detective Baker took Richardson away, still protesting his innocence all the way the Town Hall. Once charged, Richardson was soon placed in on of the cells below. Consequently, the prisoner was brought before the Sheffield magistrates on Saturday 11 September 1886. However they were to find this prisoner a most unusual thief. Appearing in the courtroom, one local newspaper described him as being ‘a tall, well dressed man in a light suit, who gave his name as James Richardson and said he was a confectioner of City Road, London.’ The Chief Constable Mr John Jackson produced a chisel which had been found on the prisoner, and stated that the marks on the drawers corresponded with the same implement.

He told the bench that the prisoner had been probably been busy robbing the bedroom when he heard a noise from the two staff following him up the stairs. In order to make his escape, he had consequently jumped out of the bedroom window. Mr Jackson then asked for a remand for the prisoner for a week in order to enquire into his record, which was granted. It was a good job that he did. During that time it was quickly established that James Richardson had several convictions for public house robberies. On Saturday 18 September 1886 the prisoner was brought back into court where various witnesses, whose bedrooms at the Black Swan had been entered, then gave their evidence.

One was a veterinary surgeon called Mr Joseph Absom who had been staying in bedroom number two. He stated how on the day in question, he had been out all day from 8 am to 9 pm. When he returned back, he discovered his writing desk had been broken open. Although nothing was missing from the desk, several items of clothing had been removed to the value of £15. Another witness Andrew Clayton stated that he had been in bedroom number six when the prisoner entered. Seeing the man in bed, the thief apologised stating that he had gone into the wrong bedroom. Other witnesses also swore to seeing the prisoner in the bar on the night in question.

However what was most curious about this crime was that some other people staying at the hotel claimed that some expensive items of jewellery had been stolen from them, which were never recovered by the police. Nevertheless the evidence against James Richardson was so complete that he was committed to take his trial. Subsequently, on Friday 15 October 1886 the prisoner was brought before the Sheffield Quarter Sessions. At first he claimed intoxication as a reason for the crime. He stated that he had been drinking for two days and had fallen out of a window whilst walking along an upstairs passage. Seeing that this was not going to gain him any sympathy, Richardson then changed his story.

The prisoner now claimed that whilst lying on the cobbles of the yard, he was in a very stunned state. He remembered being picked up by two men, but did not know where he was until he felt someone’s hands in his pockets. Richardson concluded that he had never seen most of the jewellery which he had been accused of stealing. Instead he said that the real thief had escaped with most of the expensive booty, leaving just a few paltry items in his pocket for the police to find. The prisoners defence, Mr Ellison admitted that his clients admission was most improbable, but that didn’t make it untrue. He reminded the court that there was no evidence of him having any of the most valuable pieces on his person. However the Chief Constable suggested that the prisoner might have either hidden them somewhere inside the hotel, in order to arrange for an accomplice to later taken them away.

His defence also pointed out that the landlord claims he had only been in the upstairs area for ten minutes before he heard the sounds in the yard was equally as improbable. The Recorder, in summing up the case admitted that the prisoners defence was difficult to believe, particularly given his abysmal criminal record. Mr Jackson had by this time established that James Richardson had committed similar thefts at Liverpool, Derby and Derby and other places. For these crimes the prisoner was wanted by the police forces of Liverpool, Wigan and Derby. The jury, without hesitation found the prisoner guilty. Accordingly, the Recorder sentenced him to imprisonment for twelve months with hard labour.

There had been so many reported stabbings in Rotherham of 1861 that the Sheffield Daily Telegraph dated Tuesday 23 April was forced to comment about it. Under the heading of ‘Another Serious Stabbing Case’ the reporter noted that the town:

‘Had been lately gaining an unenviable notoriety from the numerous instances on the use of a knife. On Sunday evening, another lamentable case of this kind occurred, and one in which it is feared will end fatally.’

The name of the person concerned was twenty seven year old Michael Deavers who, had been stabbed by a twenty eight year old acquaintance called Isaac Prendergast. It was reported that both local men worked as labourers at the Parkgate Ironworks and had formerly been great friends. Also, they were both were married men with children. Needless to say the results of such knife crimes made a devastating impact on the families of both victim and perpetrator alike. It was stated that Deavers left a wife and three children and Prendergast, a wife and two young children. As often happens, a drunken quarrel had developed between the two men on the evening of Saturday 20 April 1861.

They had both been drinking, firstly at the Wellington Inn, Westgate and then at the nearby house of a workmate, someone called John Martin. As a result neither of them were particularly sober, nor could remember what had actually started the argument. What was clear was that, at some point Prendergast went to smack Deavers although thankfully he ran away down a backyard and hid until his opponent had gone. The next day Deavers was walking to Parkgate when he met Prendergast again. He was standing talking to three or four other men and Prendergast challenged his former friend once more to a fight. Deavers had no wish to renew the argument, but he could see that his opponent was intent on it.

As if to prove it, Prendergast brought his knife out and threatened his workmate that he would ‘stick him if he came anywhere near him.’ With that, the two men began to scuffle with each other during which Deavers received a stab in his side. He was taken to his house nearby by two of his companions, and Dr Henry Darwin of the Rotherham Dispensary was called out to attend to him. The surgeon found that the knife had penetrated the second and third ribs of the injured man and probably had penetrated his lungs or spleen as a result. Prendergast, having seen what he had done, rapidly made his escape. However he was apprehended by police officers around 2 am, hiding under the bed at his lodgings on Westgate.

Later the same day Isaac Prendergast was brought before the Rotherham magistrates where he was formally remanded in custody until the following day. However Deavers’ condition deteriorated so badly that it was deemed necessary for someone to take his dying deposition. Accordingly, the Rev. W Howard went to his home on Monday 22 April. Prendergast was also in attendance in the custody of a police officer. In such circumstances the Rev. Howard reminded the dying man that he was not expected to live. This was a normal procedure, as it was thought that on the brink of eternity, most people would be forced to tell the truth.

As if to confirm this, Deavers first words were ‘I believe I shall die’ before he outlined the quarrel that had taken place. He described the fight stating that at one time he was on the floor holding onto Prendergast’s hair, as his opponent had his hands around his neck. Suddenly, Deavers confirmed that he had felt his former friend stab him, before two other men separated them and he went home. On Monday 6 May 1861, Isaac Prendergast was brought before the Rotherham magistrates charged with stabbing Michael Deavers with intent to murder him. Dr Henry Darwin told the court that on Sunday 21 April around 5.30 am he had gone to see the injured man and found him suffering from a stab on his left hand side.

The surgeon told the bench that he had dealt with the man’s loss of blood and did his best to make him comfortable. Police Constable George Kershaw of the Rotherham police force described arresting Prendergast on Monday 22 April and taking him into custody. When charged with the offence, the prisoner had told him that ‘he might be charged with it, but he didn’t do it.’
Nevertheless after hearing all the evidence, Isaac Prendergast was committed to take his trial at the next assizes. Subsequently he was brought before the judge, Mr Baron Wilde at the Yorkshire Assizes on Saturday 11 July 1861.

He was charged with the lesser crime of cutting and wounding and Mr Vernon Blackburn was the prosecution, who outlined the case for the court. After hearing all the evidence, the Grand Jury found the prisoner guilty although sentencing was deferred. Isaac Prendergast was consequently brought back into the assize courtroom on Monday 13 July. Mr Baron Wilde addressed the prisoner and told him that he had thought long and hard about this matter, but had come to the conclusion that it had been a case of ‘six of one and half a dozen of the other.’

He told the court that all too often when men had been drinking and were carrying knives, that a stabbing which ended fatally was usually the outcome. Thankfully in this case the injured man, Michael Deavers had fully recovered. However in order to teach Isaac Prendergast a lesson, the judge ordered him to be sentenced to just one months confinement in York Castle prison.

On the night of Saturday 29 January 1791, post boy George Leasley arrived at the Ickles, a deserted spot between Rotherham and Attercliffe Common, Sheffield. Suddenly the young man was stopped by a robber and roughly pulled off the mail cart. He had his hands and feet bound with cord and a handkerchief tied over his eyes. Leasley was then tied to a strong hedge and told not to move or try to escape for two hours, when an accomplice would safely release him. However this plucky lad only waited a short while before successfully releasing himself.

The post boy found the horse a short distance away, but the Rotherham mail had gone. He proceeded to alert the police at Rotherham, where a search was quickly made for the man responsible. Leasley described him as being dressed in a smock frock with a white cap on his head. The Rotherham post bag was later found underneath the arch of a bridge over a brook. Thankfully the letters had fallen where it was relatively dry, so the mail was still readable. The letters had all been opened and the only one found to be missing was a cheque from Messrs Walkers and Son for the sum of £123.

This was a massive amount of money for the time and the equivalent of £23,500 today. It was therefore supposed that the robber would have difficulty in cashing it undetected. However this proved not to be case. A few days later, the company was informed that the cheque had been cashed in London just thirty six hours after it had been stolen. Extensive enquiries finally resulted some months later in two men being implicated in the robbery. They were Spence Broughton and John Oxley, who were found living together in a house on Tottenham Court Road, London. On Monday 20 October 1791 they were brought before the Public Office in Bow Street and were interrogated by man called Sir Sampson Wright.

John Oxley stated that five or six days before the robbery of the Rotherham mail, Spence Broughton had mentioned to him that he was very familiar with the area between Sheffield and Rotherham. He suggested that they robbed the mail coach which travelled over the remote areas between the two towns. Oxley agreed and the pair made their plans accordingly. He told Sir Sampson Wright that he and Broughton reached Sheffield on Friday 28 January 1791 and spent the night there. The next day they were walking towards Rotherham, when the mail coach passed them at the Ickles.

Taking this as a sign, they determined to rob it on its return journey. Oxley described how Broughton had pulled out a smock frock and hat which he usually carried with him to don as a disguise. He then physically pulled a gate off the hinges to a nearby field. He did this with the intention of bringing the post boy and the coach into that field to rob it. Broughton then gave his coat to Oxley and told him to wait in a corner of the field. According to the plan, he then robbed the mail coach before the two robbers headed in the direction of Mansfield.

Oxley described how, after reaching a quiet little place, they opened the letters they had stolen and found the cheque for £123. The rest they threw away. After hearing the evidence, Sir Samson Wright handed the two men over and they were placed in custody. Broughton was imprisoned in Newgate and John Oxley was sent to Clerkenwell prison. However it was not long before Oxley escaped and disappeared into the night, leaving Broughton to face the charges alone. Accordingly on Monday 16 March 1792 Spence Broughton was taken to York under a very strong guard. He was imprisoned in the castle in order to wait until the Assizes began.

The prisoner was brought before the judge, Mr Justice Buller just over a week later on Saturday 24 March. After hearing all the evidence, the judge sentenced him to be executed and ordered that his body was to be hung in chains on Attercliffe Common, as a warning to others intent on following his example. The judge gave his reason for hanging the executed body in chains. He said that:

‘In order to deter others, his punishment should not cease at the place of execution, but his body should be suspended between Heaven and earth, as unworthy of either, to be buffeted by winds and storms.’

Accordingly Spence Broughton was executed at Knavesmere, York, a place that became infamously known as the ‘York Tyburn’ on Wednesday 18 April 1792. It was reported that to the last, his behaviour ‘was marked with a degree of fortitude and resignation, seldom observed in persons in such unfortunate circumstances.’ His body was then removed from York to Attercliffe Common where it was hung in a gibbet. This was a cage like shape, made up of chains and metal bars which were placed around the dead body. Then the whole thing was suspended into the air attached to a large pole. This resulted in the remains being visible for miles around.

On the night before his execution Spence Broughton wrote a letter to his wife Eliza, which was printed in the Sheffield Register dated 20 April 1792. In it he expresses how he is not afraid to die, but that:

‘The one thing that chills me with horror, when I reflect my poor remains must not sleep in peace, but be buffeted by the storms of heaven or parched by the summer sun, while the traveller shrinks from them with disgust and terror. This considerably freezes my blood.’

He had every right to dread this part of his execution. It was quickly reported that such was Spence Broughton’s notoriety, that many thousands of people walked from both towns of Rotherham and Sheffield to view the grisly remains. Indeed it was recorded that 40,000 local people went to view it in the first few days alone. It was also stated that ‘the public houses of Attercliffe and Rotherham will have plenty of reason to rejoice in the event.’

Incredibly the short life of Spence Broughton was not remembered just for the gruesome way in which his body was treated after death. It was more for the fact that his gradually decomposing body was left hanging in the gibbet for THIRTY SIX years. Indeed, it was only removed in 1827 by the landowner Henry Sorby, who finally got tired of people trespassing over his land in order to view the macabre remains!

It seems that as Blanche’s sister went downstairs, Florence noted that her mother had left the Venetian blinds closed in the bedroom next door which she shared with her husband. Thinking nothing of it, she continued down to help her mother prepare breakfast for the family. There she noted that her father soon followed her into the kitchen. Before he went downstairs however, Jesse Early had put his head around Blanche’s bedroom and called out to his daughter to also get up. It was almost 8 am by this time and so when he was descending the stairs, he saw his daughter walking along the landing heading towards the back bedroom, but that was where the mystery began.

A servant girl who was employed in helping out in the Early’s butchers shop as well as helping around the house, lived in a house opposite. She was called Lily Woodhead and she was surprised as she was getting ready for work, to glance across to her employers house. To her complete astonishment she saw Blanche put her legs out of the window, which Lily knew to be her employers bedroom. She watched in horror as Blanche, still in her nightdress seemed to sit on the sill for a moment before plunging down into the yard below. Lily screamed helplessly, as she knew that the bedroom window was estimated to be twenty five feet from the ground, and therefore must inevitably lead to the girl’s certain death.

Blanche’s brother, who had been working in the butchers shop below, heard his sister fall and he found her seriously injured on the cobbles. Picking Blanche up, he carried her through the shop and into the family’s living quarters behind. It seems that he had heard someone lift the window in the bedroom above, just a few minutes before, but had thought no more about it. A local doctor, Dr Baldwin was immediately called out. He quickly attended the girl, but two days afterwards on 14 December Blanche Early died. It seems that although she re-covered consciousness soon afterwards, the injured girl was unable to remember anything about the incident or what had prompted her to take such desperate actions.

Needless to say the family was quite distraught, and the only conclusion that they could come to was that Blanche had walked in her sleep and jumped out of the window by mistake. An inquest was arranged for Monday 16 December 1901 by the deputy coroner, Mr Benjamin Bagshawe at the Rotherham Infirmary. Blanche’s father was the first witness and he said that his daughter had never been a healthy girl even from birth, but that last few years had seen some slight improvement in her health. Mr Early stated that Blanche had, for many years been subject to walking in her sleep, but that had ceased around six years previously and he had never known her to do it again until her sudden death.

The witness claimed that on the Tuesday night prior to the incident, that Blanche had seemed normal, and had gone to bed at the usual time. He said that as far as he was concerned his daughter had been in her usual health and spirits. The next time the butcher saw her was when she was unconscious in the arms of her brother when he found her in the yard. Mr Early stated that the death had occurred around 1.30 am on the Saturday following. When asked if he could account for any reason for his daughters death, Mr Early shook his head. He said that he had looked long and hard at what had happened, and could only conclude that in opening the Venetian blinds, the brightness of the day had startled Blanche.

He suggested that instead of being in the bathroom, Blanche found herself in her parents bedroom and for some unknown reason had fallen out of the window. One of the jury asked the witness if he thought his daughter was awake at the time, but her father could only suggest that she might have been still dazed and not fully awake. Blanche’s sister then gave her evidence. Florence Amy Early told the coroner that she was in the kitchen downstairs when she heard her sister go into the back bedroom. She thought she had gone in there for some clean clothes and so thought nothing of it. Then she heard her brother shouting that Blanche had fallen into the yard.

She said that her sister was unconscious, but that she revived about an hour or so later. However Blanche didn’t even remember getting out of bed. The coroner asked the witness if she and her sister had been close, to which the witness agreed that they had been. Mr Bagshawe then asked her if her sister had been particularly worried about anything at the time, but Florence stated that she was not worried, nor was she in any trouble. The servant girl who worked for the family, Lily Woodhead was next to give evidence. She described seeing Blanche coming to the window and sitting on the sill for a minute. Lily told the inquest that the girl seemed to be talking to herself ‘because her mouth was moving’ but the witness could not hear anything.

The servant girl said that as Blanche opened the window she anticipated what was going to happen and Lily called out, but at the same time the girl jumped into the yard below. At this point the coroner summed up for the jury and he told them that sadly they could only come to one conclusion. He repeated the fathers assertion that his daughter had previously been a sleep walker, which he added was common for girls of that age. Mr Bagshawe pointed out that according to the witnesses evidence, Blanche had gone to bed quite cheerful and therefore the family had no reason to suspect that she might have intended to kill herself.

So, they had no reason to be concerned or to suspect that their daughter might do what she had in mind to do. The coroner suggested that the jury’s verdict should be something along the lines that ‘the deceased had died from the effects of falling through a bedroom window, whilst probably still in a semi-conscious or somnolent condition.’ A verdict to that effect was given by the jury. Mr Bagshawe added his deep sympathy for the family before closing the enquiry.

The hostility towards the police in Sheffield was further aggravated when the area covered by the force was extended outwards from the centre of town, which caused much resentment by the law breakers of the districts. One of the men employed as a night watchmen in 1838 was a man called Joseph Straw, who was numbered watchman number fifty three on the new force. Six years later, Straw was enjoying patrolling Sheffield at night, his beat being along Westbar, Gibraltar Street and several other adjoining streets around. He particularly enjoyed having the town to himself, especially in the month of April when the weather was becoming more clement.

The night of Tuesday 30 April 1844 was one such balmy, moonlit night and Straw was standing at the bottom of Furnace Hill when he saw a man, well known to the police called Mark Roberts. He was twenty one years of age, and he and a companion were coming out of a beerhouse in Bower Street. Just then a young woman passed Straw and he heard Roberts call out to her. However the woman did not appear to want to speak to him, or acknowledge him in any way. In retaliation, Roberts crossed over the road towards the girl and struck her very hard on her back and then as she fell, he punched her in the stomach.

Straw immediately went over to the couple and asked him ‘what have you done that for?’ Roberts simply answered that ‘she has been asking for it.’ The watchman then asked the stricken girl what her name was and she replied that it was Martha Cartledge. However when he asked her if he should take Mark Roberts in charge, she simply shrugged her shoulders. Straw angrily told Roberts to be on his way, but man would not move. Without any warning Roberts then punched Straw, before running off. The watchman managed to pursue him, at the same time taking out his rattle, which he sounded to call for help. Then Roberts ran down a passage leading out of Gibraltar Street into Cherry Tree Yard before he tripped and crashed to the ground.

Straw stood over him and ordered him to get up, at the same time continuing to rotate his rattle for help. By this time Straw was getting quite annoyed at his prisoner and grabbing Roberts around the collar, he roughly forced him onto his feet. Almost dragging him along at this stage, the two men were proceeding out of the yard when Roberts suddenly sat down on some steps. Once again the watchman stood over him and told him to get up, just as the prisoner lunged at him. That was when Straw felt a stabbing pain in his back, at the same time feeling a trickle of blood running down his back and legs. Thankfully, by this time two other police officers arrived, summoned by their colleagues rattle.

They were Sergeant Revill and Police Constable Lorimer. The sergeant quickly marched the culprit off to the Town Hall, whilst Lorimer accompanied the injured watchman to the surgery of Mr Henry Payne. The surgeon examined his wound and found it bleeding profusely, so he stitched it up as quickly as he could. The injured man was then taken back to his lodgings in Trippet Lane, Sheffield where he was put to bed by his wife. For two days his life was despaired of, as Mr Payne valiantly continued to attend to Straw. Thankfully by the third day, the surgeon had hopes that his patient would eventually recover.

By this time it had been established that his attacker was indeed Mark Roberts, who was very well known to the police force. He had been involved in a lot of illegal activities in Sheffield for some years. He was also known to be very antagonistic towards police officers and had a history of violence against them. Consequently on Thursday 2 May, Roberts was brought before the magistrates, charged with the stabbing offence. However he was simply remanded until Tuesday 7 May 1844, due to the fact that the watchman was still too ill to give his own evidence. After a further remand, the case was finally heard on Tuesday 14 May 1844.

In court, Mr Raynor acted as prosecution as he described the crime for the court. He told them that as a result of his injuries, Joseph Straw had been confined to his bed for nine full days after the attack. He then held up the bloody clothing that the injured man had been wearing at the time, which were quite shocking to see. Two witnesses called Thomas Cooper and Samuel Vickers who had been passing, confirmed the events of the night. A third witness John Fowler described how he saw the prisoner sitting on some steps, before seeing him put his hand in his trouser pocket and draw out something, which was ‘long and shiny.’ The witness spoke of his horror when he saw the man plunge the blade into the officer’s back.

Fowler was asked by one of the jury if he could have been mistaken, but he shook his head as he replied that he could see everything as the moon was so bright. The next to give evidence was the surgeon Mr Henry Payne, and he told the court how Joseph Straw was brought to his surgery by several persons. When his clothes were removed, the surgeon stated that he found an incision about three inches below the injured man’s left shoulder blade, which was bleeding profusely. Thankfully, the surgeon said that he had managed to stop the bleeding, before dressing the wound and sending his patient home. Mr Payne concluded that he considered the wound to be a dangerous one and that for some time, he felt that the watchman’s life was in great danger.

Martha Cartledge was next to testify, and she told the court that she was a single woman who lived on Trinity Street, Sheffield. She knew the prisoner because he had been going out with another young woman that she was acquainted with, called Elizabeth Ashton. The witness told the bench that on the night in question, she had gone out to get some supper, when she had been confronted by Mark Roberts. He appeared to be very angry with her and pulled her about, all the time speaking to her using very indecent language. The witness stated that when the watchman asked her if he should take the prisoner into custody, she had simply told him to make the prisoner go about his own business.

Roberts had arrogantly told Straw ‘I can beat a dozen watchmen like you’ as he struck him. However, Cartledge admitted that she had gone looking for some help at that point and therefore she didn’t witness the actual stabbing. The prisoners defence, Mr Palfreyman ably cross examined all the witnesses, but even he had to admit that the case against Mark Roberts was hard to disprove. He pointed out nevertheless, that Roberts had acted on the spur of the moment and there had been no clear intentions behind his actions. Even Joseph Straws solicitor, Mr Hunter was forced to admit that he did not suppose that Roberts had intended to actually kill his client.

The magistrate Rev J Hand considered the case very carefully before committing the prisoner to take his trial for ‘intending to do grievous bodily harm’ and he was removed. Accordingly, Mark Roberts appeared at the Yorkshire Assizes on Tuesday 16 July 1844 in front of judge Mr Justice Cresswell. The case was prosecuted by Mr Smith who laid out the events for the jury. The same witnesses gave their evidence as before, and the jury had no other option but to find Mark Roberts guilty of ‘feloniously stabbing, cutting and wounding Joseph Straw.’ Mr Justice Cresswell spoke about the vicious nature of the attack on a defenceless watchman, before sentencing the prisoner to fifteen years transportation.

In September of 1863 Emma Cutler was aged just twenty two when she started work as a domestic servant for a farmer at Kilnhurst, called Waterhouse. She had been deserted by her husband, and whether she knew she was pregnant at the time she took the job, remains to be seen. However by the beginning of 1864 Emma was beginning to show, and when Mrs Waterhouse charged her with being pregnant the girl denied it, telling her mistress that she had developed dropsy. Unfortunately by Saturday 19 March she could no longer hide her widening waistline, and by that time Mrs Waterhouse had enough and gave her notice. A few days later Emma Cutler disappeared.

When her employer noted that the domestic servant wasn’t in the house, her bedroom was searched. Mrs Waterhouse felt vindicated to find unmistakable evidence that proved that Emma had recently given birth in that very room. Information was given to the Rotherham police and on Wednesday 23 March she was shortly afterwards found to be back at her parents home at Worksop. Emma was quickly arrested by Police Sergeant Horne. In reply to a charge that she had murdered her child, Emma told him that the child had been born dead. When the sergeant asked her how she knew the baby was dead, she told him that it had not cried when it was born.

Emma then asked Sgt. Horne if he wanted to know where the body was, and when he replied in the affirmative, she told him that she had placed the baby in an unused attic at her employer’s house. Emma had hoped that the little body would never be discovered. The attic room, was carefully examined, and the body of a female child was found hidden underneath some clothing in an old box. It was taken to the police office in Rotherham, and an inquest was arranged for Thursday 24 March 1864 at the Rotherham Court House, by deputy coroner Mr W Woodhead Esq. The enquiry was merely a preliminary, and evidence was simply given of Emma Cutler’s arrest before it was adjourned for a week.

In the meantime the coroner requested that a post mortem be carried out on the little body by Dr Henry Darwin, the house surgeon at the Rotherham Dispensary. Subsequently Emma was brought before magistrates, on Monday 28 March, where the prisoner was simply remanded for a week. When the inquest was resumed, Dr Darwin stated that he had examined Emma and found that she had recently given birth to a child. She had told him that on the day in question she was suddenly taken ill, and was quite unable to help herself. The child at its birth, fell on the floor and did not make a sound and so the prisoner believed that it was dead.

The surgeon stated that on undertaking the post mortem, he found congestion in the child’s brain and membranes which might have happened by falling on the floor. He said that the child was full term and had died from haemorrhage and exposure combined with the want of medical assistance at the time of its birth. Dr Darwin then gave devastating evidence which pointed towards Emma’s guilt. He declared that he had examined the child’s lungs and found air in them, which proved that the child had taken a breath after it had been born. He therefore told that court, that in his opinion the child had lived a separate existence from its mother, and therefore it could not have been born dead.

Emma was not only undefended in the inquest, but was so distraught throughout the hearing of the evidence, that she wept bitterly. Consequently when the prisoner was brought before the magistrates on Monday 4 April, she offered no defence. The evidence from the coroners inquest was read out and Emma Cutler was found guilty and committed to take her trial at the next York assizes. The prisoner was brought before the very first Assizes to be held at Leeds, at the Town Hall on Saturday 13 August. She was brought before the judge, Mr Justice Keating on the lesser charge of concealment of birth. Nevertheless once again the poor girl was undefended, although she was prosecuted by a very skilful advocate, Mr Vernon Blackburn.

The only defence against such a charge was if a woman could prove that they had not actually tried to conceal the birth, but had in fact made preparations for it. As mitigation for her actions therefore, Emma told the court that she had made some arrangements for the birth of the child, and had bought the necessary baby linen. She claimed that her intention had been to leave her employers house immediately after she had been given her notice, then the baby would have been delivered at her parents house at Worksop. But before she was able to leave, she had gone into labour and the baby had been born. Acting out of sheer panic and well aware that she had denied the fact that she was pregnant at all to Mr and Mrs Waterhouse, she left the house in shame after hiding the baby’s body.

However her employer denied this statement when she gave her own evidence. Mrs Waterhouse told the judge that the prisoner had, with her permission, stayed on for several days after the expiry of her notice. Trials of these kinds were very frightening to an undefended young girl, and being faced with skilful questions from the prosecution and the judge would have been very distressing to an ignorant girl. It was noted that throughout the trial Emma was reported as being in such distress and so terrified, that during the judges charge to the jury, she had actually fainted. Thankfully, the prisoner he had been quickly attended to by the York prison matron. She gave the prisoner some smelling salts and Emma soon recovered.

Nevertheless the jury found her guilty, although the judge stated that the case was one ‘entirely devoid of any aggravation’. He must have felt some sympathy for the stricken girl though, as he sentenced Emma to be imprisoned for just one month with hard labour. She was lucky. Two more similar cases were tried by the same judge on the same day, at the same Assizes. The next case of concealment was one from Arksey near Doncaster and the prisoner, a twenty two year old girl called Jane Tomlinson was sentenced to three months imprisonment. The second case was from South Kirby near Wakefield and involved a 19 year old girl called Faith Abbott. Justice Keating admitted that the case was a sad one, however in his summing up told the prisoner that nevertheless she had broken the law, and Faith was sentenced to six weeks imprisonment with hard labour.

Adapted From ‘Rotherham Crimes: Book Two’ by Margaret Drinkall (2016) A collection of twenty seven weird and terrible crimes from Amazon. Kindle edition: £2.49 or Paperback: £7.99

On Saturday 19 December 1835, Mr David Miller was in his hardware shop in Fargate when he received a box which had arrived on Mr Bradleys coach that afternoon. The porter charged him a shilling for carriage and porterage, which Miller quickly paid. Although the box held a label with his address, and also had a second one with ‘Birm, Dec 18’ written on it. Miller did not, at that time recognise the handwriting, nor could imagine who had sent anything to him from Birmingham. Curiously inspecting the box before he opened it, Miller noted that one end of the box had been sealed down very securely with lots of tape. Slowly he began to feel somewhat suspicious of this parcel, so he took it into an outbuilding and laid it on the floor.

Above it, he rigged up a four stone weight attached to a rope which he hung from a hook in the ceiling. As Miller let the rope go, it dropped and caused a fracture in the wood of the box from which gunpowder appeared. Also among the gunpowder were eight or nine ‘crackers’ which were attached to the sides and the lid of the box. He assumed that these were intended to explode the gunpowder upon opening. Miller went immediately to Mr Bradley’s coach office and upon enquiring about the box, was told by one of the porters that two other similar boxes from Birmingham had also arrived.

They too had been delivered that morning. One addressed to Edward Hobson and the other to Benjamin Rose. Miller immediately rushed to warn his business acquaintances about not opening the boxes. Going first to Rose’s shop, which was near to his own premises on Fargate, Miller burst through the shop door and asked Rose if he had opened the box, warning him that it had been filled with gunpowder. Rose replied that he hadn’t, so Miller asked if he could see it. Rose said it was upstairs and that he would fetch it down. He went up the stairs, but although Miller could hear him moving about, he wondered what was taking him so long. Finally, Rose came back downstairs empty handed.

By this time, Miller’s curiosity was fully aroused, as Rose now pointed to an unopened box situated on the other side of the counter and said that was the one. To make things even more suspicious, Miller could not help but notice that the box was nothing like his own. Rose’s behaviour had been so strange that after considering it for some time, he went to the Town Hall to report the matter to the police. He spoke to Constable James Wild and told him how strangely Benjamin Rose had been acting. He also revealed his suspicions that he had been the one who had sent the three gunpowder parcels. Needless to say, that officer went immediately to Rose’s premises and demanded to see the box that had been delivered that morning.

However, he was told that after Miller had told him about the gunpowder, he had taken it to a nearby cooper called Jarvis to have him open it. After hearing this, PC Wild took Benjamin Rose into custody, charging him with sending David Miller and Edward Hobson, boxes loaded with gunpowder which had been constructed to explode upon opening. Consequently on Tuesday 22 December 1835 Rose was brought before the magistrates at the Sheffield Town Hall. However, even before the case could be heard, a conundrum was established. The prisoners defence solicitor, Mr Dixon told the court that the prisoner had only been apprehended the previous afternoon. He asked for a remand in order in order to prepare the defence for his client.

However the prosecution, Mr Palfreyman objected, stating that the bench could not remand the prisoner without some evidence being brought against him. However if they did so, it might defeat the ends of justice to detail any part of it at that time. The magistrates agreed, but said that they needed to hear sufficient grounds against the prisoner in order to remand him in the first place. Finally it was decided that Constable James Wild’s opinion would be sought, and he was called into the courtroom. Wild stated that he was aware that there were sufficient ground to charge the prisoner and agreed that it would be highly improper to relate any of the facts at that time. A remand in custody was ordered and Mr Dixon promptly asked for bail, which was refused.

Benjamin Rose was accordingly returned back into court on Saturday 26 December when the case was due to be heard in full. The prosecution, Mr Palfreyman stated the nature of the charge against Benjamin Rose. He informed the bench as to the law referring to anyone sending gunpowder through the post, in order to injure or murder the party to whom it was sent. Miller was the first witness and he gave evidence on the box being delivered to his premises and described the label with ‘Birm, Dec 18’ on it. He was asked by the prosecution if he recognised the handwriting on it. He told the court that he had seen Rose’s handwriting on many occasions and claimed that it was identical to the writing on the label.

The witness also produced a number of receipts, which also held the prisoners signature and they were shown to and compared by the magistrates. Miller claimed that they were all identical, nevertheless the bench was not so sure. There certainly was some legal dispute about whether the handwriting on the cards should even have been admitted at evidence and as to whether they should be brought into question at all. It was finally agreed that the identification of the handwriting was very unclear and therefore could not be used in a question of law. Cross examined by Mr Dixon, Miller stated that he had known the prisoner a long time and had no grudge against him as far as he knew.

Mr Palfreyman, in referring to the testing of the box in the outbuilding, then asked if there had been an explosion when the weight dropped onto the box. Miller said that there hadn’t. When asked about Edward Hobson to whom the second box had been addressed, Rose said he had dealt with him also through his business. At this point PC Wild produced the box which had been sent to Hobson and which had been handed over to a local cooper called James Jarvis for testing. The cooper was next to give evidence, and Jarvis told the court that he lived in Snig Hill, Sheffield and had known both Miller and Rose for many years. The witness said that when the box was tested, that he too had found gunpowder in it when opened.

He described how Miller had come into his shop in Lambert Croft on 19 December and had asked him to drill a hole in the box. He warned Jarvis to be careful as he suspected there was ‘something not quite right about it.’ Jarvis told the court that the two men ended up taking the box out into the yard and carefully prising the lid off. He had poured the powder out and found it weighed six pounds in total. Parkinson Webster was the next to give his evidence, and he told the court that he was a porter at Mr Bradleys Coach Office. He stated that on 19 December he had taken delivery of three boxes which had come from Birmingham. He reported that he had delivered one box to David Miller, the second box he had handed to Mrs Rose and the third to Mr Hobson.

PC James Wild told the court that on the previous Saturday around 5 pm, Miller had come to his house and reported that he had received a box full of gunpowder and that Rose and Hobson had also received boxes similarly packed. Edward Hobson told the court that he had been made aware that a box addressed to him was waiting at the coach office for delivery. The witness was asked if the card on the box were in Rose’s handwriting. Hobson stated that he thought it was Rose’s handwriting, although he could not swear to it for sure. He described how the coachman came to his workplace and informed him that a box had arrived at the coaching office for him and about 3.30 pm, so he went to fetch it.

Only at the coach office was he also informed about the other two similar boxes. A quarter of an hour later Miller came to warn him about opening the box. This was the case for the prosecution, although at this point there was again a dispute as to whether Benjamin Rose should be allowed bail. Mr Palfreyman stated that even if the case was proved against the prisoner, it could only be classed as a demeanour and he began to quote some legal authorities to prove it. One of the magistrates, Mr Hugh Parker suggested that the prisoner be remanded in custody until Tuesday 29 December and that meanwhile the third box should be opened carefully by PC Wild. He suggested that would give him time to seek some legal clarification on the matter before the court was finally cleared.

When the court reconvened on Tuesday 29 December 1835, the prisoners defence Mr Dixon opened his defence by citing a similar case which had taken place in Birmingham recently. He described how a man had also been sent a tin case charged with gunpowder, which had been constructed to explode upon opening. Upon hearing about this case, Mr Dixon said that he had sent a letter to the Law Courts, querying as to whether the crime would be categorised as a misdemeanour or a capital offence and he was still awaiting their response. Police Constable James Wild produced the third box which had now been opened. He showed the court how it had contained a quantity of gunpowder and a cracker, one side of which was attached to the lid.

The other cracker was attached to the side of the box, in the expectation that it would blow up when the box was opened. However a witness who had attended the opening with the constable, Mr V Corbett stated clearly that there had been no explosion when the box had been opened. The defence, Mr Palfreyman pointed out that the court must be satisfied that the device was really intended to explode, otherwise there was no case against his client. He stated that the crackers were made of silver nitrate which would not ignite gunpowder. He concluded that without that, the total charge against the prisoner had rested entirely on the identification of the handwriting.

Mr Dixon stated that although two witnesses (Miller and Hobson) had swore it was the prisoners writing, a third witness had denied it was Rose’s handwriting at all. Therefore the evidence against his client was shaky to say the least. Evidence was also given from a man called George Foster who told the court that he and the prisoner had married two sisters. On the night before the incident, Rose and his wife had been at the house of her sister from 9 pm to 11 pm. Therefore he could not have travelled to Birmingham in order to send the parcels. Other witnesses gave evidence of the prisoners character which was reported to be of an upright, kind and humane disposition.

However the most important witness, was a manufacturer of fireworks in Sheffield called Mr Bywater. He told the court that he had scientifically examined the box and stated inequivalently that the crackers would never have ignited the gunpowder. His evidence was backed up by a second firework manufacturer, Mr John Gascoigne of Leeds. After hearing all the witness statements, the magistrates consulted for some time between themselves. Mr Hugh Parker stated that the bench had considered all the evidence, but that they were still undecided and therefore they would prefer to have a judges decision on the matter. Accordingly Benjamin Rose was sent to take his trial at the next Assizes.

Thankfully by the time the prisoner was brought before the court at York on Thursday 10 March 1836, the case against him had been reduced to that of a simple misdemeanour. The evidence was heard by Mr Coltman in the Grand Jury Room, and due to the fact that the charge had been reduced, the jury put a stop to the defence. They immediately returned a verdict that the prisoner was clearly not guilty. Thankfully Benjamin Rose was able to leave the courtroom without a stain on his character.

George Shepley was a confectioner who had a shop on Fargate, Sheffield around Easter of 1882. In his employment were three sisters called Bathia, Janet and Ada Machin, who all worked as domestic servants for him and his wife. Around that time, George’s wife Emma had spoken to him of her suspicions that the twenty two year old Bathia had recently put on weight and she suspected her of being pregnant. She admitted to her husband that she had spoken to the girl, but Bathia had convinced her mistress that her suspicions were groundless and the matter was dismissed for the time being. However Mrs Shepley was not convinced.

On 31 May the three sisters went to bed at the usual time in the bedroom they all shared. Bathia shared a bed with Ada and Janet slept in another bed in the same room. Nothing unusual was heard throughout the night, apart from Janet waking and hearing Bathia was being sick in the bathroom around 1.30 am. Nevertheless, Mrs Shepley was still suspicious and so on 1 June she sent for surgeon Mr F. Woolhouse and asked him to examine the girl. Sure enough he found enough evidence that Bathia had recently been confined of a child. After the surgeon left the room, Mrs Shepley asked her servant what had become of the baby and the prisoner told her that it had been born dead and she had buried it in the garden.

A search was made and the little body was quickly found, wrapped in an apron made of course sacking. Angry as she was at being deceived, Mrs Shepley allowed Bathia to stay at the confectioners until she had completely recovered, before being sent to Fir Vale Workhouse. Meanwhile an inquest on the child’s body was arranged by Coroner, Mr D Wightman to be held at the workhouse on 5 June 1882. However, as Bathia had still not recovered and was unable to attend, just formal evidence was taken. Surgeon Mr Woolhouse was asked to undertake a post mortem by the coroner before the inquest was adjourned to Tuesday 4 July.

Thankfully Bathia had completely recovered and was at the inquest in the custody of Acting Detective Jackson of the Sheffield Police Force. The first witness was the confectioner himself and Mr Shepley told the jury that the girl had worked for him for a year, as had her sisters Janet and Ada. He said that following the surgeons revelation that Bathia had recently given birth, he and the surgeon had searched all the cupboards and outbuildings attached to the property on Fargate. Both he and Mr Woolhouse described the finding of the body of the child in the ashpit.

Mr Woolhouse then spoke about the post mortem and how he had found that a wad of tissue had been pushed down into the child’s throat. He stated that in appearance the female child looked full term and well developed and there were signs that there had been air in the lungs after birth. He concluded that its death was due to suffocation caused by the tissue paper in the throat. Mrs Emma Shepley also gave evidence that over the past year she had suspected the girl had been pregnant, but when she tasked her with it, Bathia denied it twice. She repeated how she had sent for Mr Woolhouse and he discovered that Bathia had given birth recently.

At the conclusion of the inquest Mr Wightman summed up for the jury, who after a short deliberation brought in a verdict of wilful murder against Bathia Machin. He told the prisoner:

‘Bathia Machin the jury have returned a verdict of wilful murder against you. It is therefore my duty to commit you to take your trial on that charge’

The prisoner was weeping as she was escorted into a police cell at the conclusion of the inquest.

Accordingly Bathia Machin was brought before judge Mr Justice Cave in the Crown Court of the Leeds Assizes on Monday 31 July 1882. Thankfully she was defended by Mr Lawrence Gane. Mr Barker prosecuted the case and he gave details to the court. He stated that the main evidence against the prisoner was the examination by the doctor and the fact that the child had been wrapped in an apron which had been identified as the property of the prisoner. Mr Woolhouse once again repeated his evidence of the post mortem and finding the tissue in the child’s throat.

He was then cross-examined by the judge who asked him if he was sure that the piece of paper in the throat was the cause of death. However Mr Woolhouse shook his head and said that he could not say that it was the definitive cause of death. Mr Justice Cave immediately stated that after that comment that he did not see how the capital charge of murder could therefore be maintained. When the prosecution said that would be a question for the jury to decide, his lordship disagreed. He told Mr Barker ‘how can they say, not being persons of scientific skill, when the medical man himself cannot say so? They must be guided by the scientific evidence.’

The judge pointed out that to find the prisoner guilty, the jury have to have clear evidence, not only in order to prove that death was caused by the paper in the throat, but also that it was the prisoner who had put it there. Mr Barker admitted that was so and that he would withdraw the capital charge and proceed with a case of concealment of birth. Mr Gane’s line of defence was that there was no evidence to show that Bathia intended to conceal the birth from her mistress. When asked outright, she had immediately admitted giving birth without any hesitation. Nevertheless the jury found Bathia Machin guilty of concealing the birth. Mr Justice Cave summed up before sentencing the prisoner to twelve months imprisonment with hard labour.

One of the biggest impacts on mental health for the people of Sheffield was the implementation of an Act of Parliament dated 1845. This stipulated that each county in Britain now had to each have their own asylum to cater for those people who were diagnosed to be insane. For Sheffield this was the South Yorkshire Asylum (later renamed the West Riding Asylum at Wadsley) built in August of 1872. These buildings were large, airy places, purposely designed so that fresh air and exercise were part of the patients regime which, it was hoped would aid to restoring them back to full health. Under this Act, these asylums were now visited and inspected on a regular basis by Inspectors or Commissioners of Lunacy.

However there was no improvement to the method of diagnosing a patients mental illness in the first place. The normal practise was usually brought to the attention of the authorities when a family member displayed any unusual symptoms. Concerned relatives would then appeal to the workhouse guardians, who requested one of their medical officer’s to assess that person. However the assessment process was very lax and informal, and usually consisted of just an observation of that individual, sometimes this was completed in the street. In many cases after such an assessment, nothing more was done for the patient as he/she was left with their family, until he/she showed more excessive traits.

The next step in the diagnosis process was that all cases of lunacy had to be reported to the local magistrates, and if they thought there was a case to answer, the patient would be referred to the workhouse officials. Those who were reported as violent, were immediately removed to the workhouse ‘lunatic’ ward, often in restraints. Sadly, despite the fact that the same Poor Law Act of 1834 clearly stated ‘no dangerous lunatic, insane person or imbecile was to be detained in workhouses for more than 14 days’ this was often ignored. As a result this gave carte blanch to workhouse masters, guardians or medical officers to detain the patient in these wards indefinitely.

They did this because the problem was, that it was cheaper for workhouse guardians to keep the person so afflicted in the workhouse ward, rather than have to pay for their support in the county asylums. To make the issue more complex, once at the workhouse, segregation from other inmates was difficult to maintain. It was a frequent complaint listed in the Guardian minute books that the people they labelled as ‘lunatics’ were kept in the same ward as twenty to thirty poor, aged people. As a result the elderly paupers were unable to sleep for the dreadful noises, ramblings or raucous singing that would often continue all night long.

This was further made problematic by the lack of paid staff, which often resulted in such afflicted persons being kept in open wards. In many cases other inmates were made to be responsible for them, sometimes with disastrous results. Sadly the treatment of lunatic patients who did enter the county asylums, were not made to be any better than that which they received in local workhouses. In August 1879 an account was published in a Sheffield newspaper giving an account of what it was like inside Wadsley Asylum. In an ‘Interesting Narrative by a Cured Patient’, the unnamed reporter describes the asylum attendant as ‘one who bids us to cease in a loud tone.

He states that if not obeyed at once, you are handled very rudely, pushed backwards and forwards and on one occasion, punched in the ribs’. The report describes an incident where the reporter threw an object at an abusive attendant:

‘I was laid hold of by two or three men and banged first against a wall and then a floor. If you make your mind up to report the attendants to the doctors, the attendant will not give you a chance to speak. You are then locked up in a dark room for as much as 12 hours. Patients who are recovering tend to be used as servants’.

Given the lack of understanding of what treatment could be metered out, it appears that the only attitude towards all lunatic patients during the Victorian period was to just keep them calm and occupied as much as possible. When it was needed, restraints or padded cells were used on the more violent patients to stop them harming themselves or others. Strict routines and diets were followed. Despite the ignorance around mental health issues, it was found to be true that many patients responded well to this type of regular regime.

Gradually, by the turn of the century however, new methods were being tried such as electric convulsive therapy and lobotomy operations. However, given the ignorance around such conditions archaic methods still continued. Cold baths were advocated for women who were described as ‘hysterical’ and scalps were shaved from both sexes in order promote a ‘cooling of the brain.’ All outdated practises which gave no long term relief to patients of either sex. Eventually there was a growth towards more moral treatment, where routine and regular prayers were found to be effective, and thankfully harsh treatment, brutal behaviour and restraints were gradually abandoned.