Towards the end of 1867 two young men, George Nixon aged 15 and Charles Bell aged 17 absconded from their separate homes at Masbrough, near Rotherham. They had both previously lived with their parents, who complained that they were increasingly finding them difficult to manage. By some nefarious means the two lads proceeded to travel to several other towns and cities, including Liverpool and Manchester, before returning back to their home town. On their return, they spoke about their criminal deeds and gathered about themselves a gang of young gullible boys. To them they would relate to them the many daring highway robberies they had committed on children in the course of their travels. A number of small metal swords had been collected by these boys, and with the other members of the gang they performed some kind of ‘highwayman training’ on the back roads and lanes around Rotherham. What was more sinister however was the way in which they trained these same boys into the more criminal art of burglary. It was not long therefore before the local police became aware of the increase in the local cases of burglary. These had been carried out in various houses and business premises throughout Masbrough and Rotherham over the first couple of months of 1868.

On the night of Tuesday 25 February one such burglary took place at the home of Mrs E Bacon, a wine and spirit merchant of Clifton Bank, Rotherham. Fortunately the door of the room where Mrs Bacon kept most of her money was locked, so the thieves contented themselves with stealing some wearing apparel and other articles to the value of £1.10s.  The police were called in the next morning and they found that the burglars had gained entrance into the house by breaking a pane of glass in the kitchen window. It was deduced that the thieves would have slipped a hand through the broken glass and managed to unfasten the latch and gain their entrance to the house. A large bulk of the stolen property reported missing by Mrs Bacon was quickly found by Police constable Walker at the pawn shop of a Mr Boardman of Masbrough. Some of the items had been pledged in the name of a local man, who was later found to be totally innocent of the crime. Initially he was arrested, but quickly eliminated from police enquiries. However the description that the pawnbroker Mr Boardman gave of the two boys who had actually pledged the items, was so good that Nixon and Bell were arrested the following evening. Sergeant Snowden found the two boys enjoying themselves at the Victoria Music Hall in Rotherham at a late hour. Two other young lads, Dan O’Brien aged 16 and John Gill aged 13 who were also with them were charged too. The news of the burglaries had soon became known in the town. Consequently, on their way through the streets to the cells escorted by the sergeant, the four boys were followed by a large crowd of people. It was reported that the young prisoners enjoyed the attention of the crowd ‘before whom they conducted themselves with the utmost bravado’. John Gill the youngest of the boys, saw some of his friends in the crowd and waved at them cheerily, before giving them an affectionate and dramatic farewell.

However such courage deserted the boys when they reached the police cells, there they were searched and several tools of the trade were found on them. Bell had a hammer and some matches, O’Brien had a match box, a screwdriver and a bread knife, with half the blade missing. Nixon had a small pistol loaded with powder and shot and Gill had in his possession a dark lantern. That is a lantern with a very small light, used by burglars, so it cannot be seen from the outside of the premises. When questioned, Nixon said the pistol belonged to O’Brien, but the latter denied it and said it belonged to all of them. The young robbers claimed that they would use it on anyone who threatened to interfere with them. Despite their bravura performance on the way to the police cells however, within a very few hours it was reported that one of the lads had given way. He was the youngest member of the gang, 13 year old John Gill. At some point he started to cry as he told the officer ‘I may as well tell all about it, we did the job’ meaning the burglary at Clifton Bank. Once they were informed that their colleague had admitted the crime, the others then confessed their own part in the robbery. On Thursday 28 February the four young men were brought before the Rotherham magistrates charged with burglariously entering the dwelling house of Mrs Bacon. The bench were told that Bell, Nixon and Gill had all been employed at different works in the neighbourhood. The only exception was Dan O’Brien, who was apprenticed to his father as a roof slater. The newspaper described them as being ‘startling specimens of precocious depravity’ as they appeared in the courtroom. The chief constable asked the magistrates to remand the prisoners until the following Monday 2 March 1868, in order for more enquiries to be made.

On their next appearance the four prisoners readily admitted their guilt, and expressed their penitence for the crime to the victim, Mrs Bacon. Nevertheless they were all found guilty and committed for trial at the assizes. The four boys appeared at the Leeds Town Hall on Thursday 2 April 1868 in front of Mr Justice Hannan. He told them that it was an appalling crime to be committed by prisoners of such a young age. Thirteen year old John Gill was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, whilst the other three were sentenced to four month’s prison with hard labour each. Only when Victorian reformers took an interest in the prison system did the sending of children into an adult prison slowly begin to change. In 1854 most magistrates had the power to send children to reform school, but as a deterrent many of them insisted that the children served a prison sentence as well. Some children were birched, but this was an even more terrible punishment. Following the sentence children were held down by burly constables over a table and a birch consisting of several twigs tied together were used across the child’s back, shoulders or buttocks.

Burglary was one of the most common crimes committed throughout the nineteenth century, so much so that violent burglaries would be dealt with as a capital offence. In an attempt to foil witnesses and the police, many burglars would wear masks to disguise themselves, or failing that would darken their faces with soot to avoid recognition. On the night of 16 October 1841 a single woman Sarah Hancock aged 50 was living at Brampton-en-le-Morthen, near Rotherham. The house in which she lived was an crumbling old mansion house, which included many unoccupied rooms as well as others which she let out for rent. She herself, lived in two rooms on the ground floor, and despite having two bedrooms above, was in the habit of sleeping in one of the downstairs rooms. On that evening Sarah, who kept no servants, retired to bed after making sure the house was securely locked up. She slept lightly and about 2 am she heard sounds which disturbed her. Partially dressing herself, she went to the door and was confronted by a man carrying a light which was so bright that despite the soot on his face, Sarah later told the police that she recognised him as John Rose, a chimney sweep of Rotherham. She later claimed that the light was so bright that she could see that he was wearing a light coloured jacket and hat. They looked at each other before she fled in the direction of the kitchen, but the man followed her and knocked her to the floor. He held her down as he told her ‘Thou must be still thou knows. Where’s thy money?’ Just then something attracted his attention and as he turned, this courageous woman managed to pushed him off her and ran to another open door which led to the yard. However as she approached she was confronted by a second man, who she said she recognised as another Rotherham chimney sweep called Henry Wilson. He too was in his sooty clothes. At this point the first attacker viciously knocked her down again, and Sarah fell heavily into the yard. Showing no mercy the men dragged her back into the house and continued to strike her several times. They tore her cap off and ripping her night gown at the neck demanding to know where she kept her money. Fearing that the men would kill her, Sarah gave them her purse which she had in her pocket. Inside the red morocco purse was a £5 note of the Old Sheffield Bank and some ancient gold and silver coins. Eventually after threatening her not to contact the police, the two men left. After Sarah was sure they had gone, she went to the nearby rooms occupied by a lodger Mr James Ward. She told him what had happened and that she had recognised the two burglars.

The next morning the Rotherham police were notified and they found the woman in a terrible state. Her eye was blackened and one ankle was bruised and swollen and all one side of her body was discoloured. During the attack the men had so severely twisted her neck, that she could not without difficulty turn her head, breathe or swallow properly. After hearing her statement and the identification of her two attackers, Constables Bland and Womack obtained warrants to arrest the men. On Sunday morning of 18 October about 1.30 am they found Henry Wilson at his own house on Westgate and arrested him. At the same time two other constables named Dearnelly and Hague proceeded to the lodging house owned by George Denton where John Rose was known to live. Another lodger, Mrs Norman told them he was not there, however she stated that Rose had not left the house the night of the attack. The landlord George Denton confirmed to the two constables that Rose had stayed at his house that night, and pointed out that he could not have left the house without his knowledge. Another lodger said his name was Abraham Parr said that he shared a bed with Rose on the night in question and stoutly declared that his friend had not got out of bed until seven o’clock the following morning. Despite their denials both Henry Wilson and John Rose were brought before the Rotherham magistrates, Colonel Fullerton and Henry Walker Esq., on Monday 25 October 1841. They were charged that about 2am on the morning of 17 October they had broken into the house of Sarah Hancock and stolen a £5 bank note and the gold and silver coins. The victim, Sarah was in the courtroom, and it was reported that she was ‘still very much disfigured and her hands and face showed that she had been very much abused by the villains’.

Showing great courage as she faced her attackers, Sarah gave her evidence in a clear and concise manner, as she described the events of the night. She confidently told the court that she recognised both men, now standing in front of her, as they had been employed by her to clean the chimneys at her house at different times. She also complained that this had been the sixth time that her house had been broken into. Mrs Norman gave her evidence as she stated that Rose slept in a chamber above the kitchen with another lodger Abraham Parr. She remembered the 16 October very well as she had been nursing her sick grandchildren that night. Because of their illness she was sleeping on a temporary bed in the kitchen, and had been there when Rose came in earlier in the night and brought some ale with him. Like her fellow lodger Abraham Parr, Mrs Norman confirmed that John Rose had never left the house after finishing his ale, but had then gone to bed. She pointed out that because she was sleeping in the kitchen, anyone going out would have to pass her, and stated categorically that no one had entered the kitchen until the following morning. Hearing this evidence the magistrates asked Sarah if she was correct in her identification of the two men. The woman never hesitated, as she told them that she was completely sure and had indeed known Henry Wilson since childhood. The magistrates only conferred for a short before concluding that the two men were to be sent to take their trial at the next York assizes.

On Friday 5 November 1841 Henry Wilson and John Rose were taken to York Castle to await their trial. However it was not until the following year, 21 March 1842 that they appeared in front of judge Baron Rolfe charged with burglary and using personal violence on Sarah Hancock. Once again Sarah demonstrating a great deal of coolness and self possession described the events of the night and again identified the two men standing in the dock. Rose’s defence counsel, Mr Roebuck told the jury that in order to condemn a man to death for a crime as serious as they were hearing, the evidence should be taken very seriously. He stated that:

‘no jury should rely on the identification of just one witness, under circumstances which might have deprived her of her self possession’. In such circumstances she would be least able  to give her accurate opportunity for observing the robbers’.

 As a witness he brought George Denton, who once again swore on oath that the prisoner had been at his house on the night in question. Wilson’s defence counsel Mr Wilkins was equally vocal in condemnation of Sarah Hancock’s identification. He claimed that although she had said that the prisoners had soot on their faces and were wearing sooty clothes, not a scrap of soot had been found on her person after the attack. He claimed that in her mind she had associated the soot on their clothes and faces with that on the chimney sweeps who had previously swept her chimneys. However Wilkins stated that he was unable to produce any witnesses to prove that Wilson was elsewhere, as the only alibi he had was his wife, and she was forbidden by law to be a witness for her husband. The jury retired for quite a while and eventually John Rose was declared innocent, but Henry Wilson was found guilty. The judge then gave him the death sentence. Thankfully this was later replaced by transportation for the rest of his natural life.

Two months later however, the real attackers were revealed. On Friday 15 May 1842 information had been received about several robberies in the area around Conisbrough. Consequently four men were arrested for the robberies, the following Tuesday by the Conisbrough constable Mr Joseph Hill. Their names were Joseph Goodlad, James Morton, Charles Oxley and Richard Gregory. Another member of the gang William Harrison had disappeared and a warrant was out for his arrest. The four men were brought before magistrate Mr Bosville and after hearing their evidence Goodlad, Morton and Oxley were sent to Wakefield Gaol to await their trial and Gregory was discharged. During the investigations into the robberies the magistrate Mr Bosville was informed that some of them including William Harrison had committed the burglary against Sarah Hancock. On Saturday 16 May, Harrison was captured in an outhouse near the residence of George Banks Esq., by two workmen who had been employed in land draining. On being informed of the circumstances Mr Bosville was sent for and he interviewed Harrison at Rotherham police station. He then committing him to Wakefield House of Correction to await his trial on Thursday 19 May 1842.

The four men, William Harrison, John Goodlad, Charles Oxley and James Morton were brought before the Sheffield Sessions charged with the burglaries at Conisbrough and at Brampton. Mr Wilkins, who had defended Henry Wilson prosecuted the case. He reminded the jury of the robbery of Sarah Hancock and that a man named Wilson had been convicted of that crime. The chair in passing sentence told the court that so long as he was entrusted with the administration of justice, he was determined that all those who were convicted before him of most violent robberies should not be allowed to remain in this country. The sentence on the prisoner Harrison therefore would be that he be transported beyond the seas, to such place as her Majesty should direct for the term of 15 years. The sentence on the three other prisoner, Goodland, Oxley and Morton was transportation for ten years.

On Saturday 4 June 1842 an advertisement appeared in the Sheffield and Rotherham Advertiser which called the attention of the public to the case of Henry Wilson and John Rose. The crime was described as being a burglary at the house of Mrs Hancock, at Brampton, which was ‘attended with great violence’ and continued:

‘Considerable expenses was incurred by their friends in defending them. Rose was acquitted, but Wilson convicted and sentenced to transportation for life. Circumstances however, have since happily come to light, entirely confirming the innocence of Rose and so completely satisfactory as to Wilson‘s innocence also, that her Majesty’s Royal Pardon has just been granted to him. After several months imprisonment, he is rescued from suffering and disgrace. Little need be said to excite the sympathy of the public towards one so painfully situated, or towards their friends in humble circumstances, who came forward to defend the innocent, and, by doing so have seriously embarrassed themselves’.

The advertisement asked that subscriptions could be sent to the Rotherham bank or directly to the magistrate Mr Bosville himself. Thankfully by the same day an announcement of the Royal Pardon was granted to Henry Wilson, who was still languishing in York Castle awaiting his transportation. He was released two days later before returning back to Rotherham in triumph.

On Thursday 23 September 1875 a man called Thomas Stockdale was a greengrocer who rented a large double fronted house on Greasbrough Street, Thornhill, Masbrough. The house was so large that members of his extended family also lived in it. Consequently in at the house at the time was Thomas (aged 27) his wife, Emma (27) and his daughter Charlotte (2). His father-in-law James Brunt (63) his wife Susannah (63) their daughter Margaret (18) and an unnamed granddaughter (3). Also at the house was Elizabeth Jenkinson (25) the other married daughter of James Brunt, her husband Thomas Jenkinson and their son, also called Thomas (3). Not only did the families live together, but they also ate together around a large table in the dining room. That day Mrs Brunt had made a delicious broth for dinner using a large saucepan, consisting of a sheep’s head, leeks, parsnips, turnip and pearl barley. However it was not long into the meal before little Charlotte Brunt became ill, but as fruit was sold at the house, no one took much notice of it and just assumed she had eaten too much. However shortly afterwards other members of the family started to be violently sick. Not only were all the members of the family gravely ill, but also a neighbour who worked for Thomas Stockdale named Francis Duke. He had been given some of the broth before the family sat down to eat. As soon as the children were taken poorly, Mrs Brunt went to his house, but he had eaten a whole basin full and was already vomiting.

Mr John Branson the surgeon of Masbrough quickly attended the family and he immediately applied emetics and a stomach pump to all those who were ill. So serious was their condition that he stayed the whole of the afternoon and far into the night, and did not leave until nine of them were out of danger. Sadly, Thomas Jenkinson, the son of Elizabeth died about 6 pm and his death was reported to the Rotherham coroner. At that time surgeon Mr Branson was unable to give a reason for the illness of the family, as Mrs Brunt told him that nothing but the best ingredients had been used in the meal. When the news became known in the area of Masbrough, it caused great consternation and several suggestions were put forward to account for the condition of the victims. At first it was suggested that perhaps the sheep’s head was not as fresh as it should have been, but although wild stories circulated no one really knew. An inquest was held on Friday 23 September 1875 at the Phoenix Hotel, Masbrough before the coroner Mr D Wightman on the child Thomas Robert Jenkinson. The coroner took evidence on the identification of the child, but then told the inquest that he could do little until a post mortem had been done on the body. In order for this to be completed, he then postponed the formal enquiry until Monday 27 September.

At the second inquest Mr William Henry Pearce, surgeon of Rotherham stated that he had undertaken a post mortem on the deceased child along with Mr Branson. He found the stomach and bowels congested as if from an irritant poison. He arranged for these items to be placed in a glass jar and sealed in front of Police Inspector Hey, who then took them to Mr William Baker an analytical chemist from Sheffield. Mr Pearce told the inquest that there were no marks of violence upon the child, nor anything else which might have contributed to his death. The other surgeon, Mr Branson confirmed his colleagues findings and reported that thankfully the other nine people involved in the accident were now making good progress and were expected to survive. The coroner at this point said to Mr Branson:

‘I must say there is a great deal of credit due to you for the very prompt steps you took in this matter. I have it on very high authority  from Mr Baker who told me this morning, that he had very little doubt but for your prompt action, a good number of these people would have died. I am very happy to tell you here that I consider your conduct has been extremely satisfactory’.

However it was the analytic chemist Mr Baker who next gave evidence, that finally revealed what the poisonous substance had been. He told the coroner that he had received from Inspector Hey the glass jar containing the stomach and bowels of the deceased child. Mr Baker had also been handed a large saucepan containing some of the broth and a basin containing vomited matter. Incredibly the analyst informed the coroner that those items all contained a large amount of arsenic and that there was enough to poison twenty persons. However he admitted that he could not account for how the arsenic had got into the boys stomach in the first place.

Finally the mystery was solved with the evidence of the next witnesses. Mrs Susannah Brunt who told the inquest that she made a broth in a large saucepan, which the day before, had been used for washing purposes. She said that, as was usual the family’s clothes had been boiled or soaked in a large second hand tub. Some of the clothes had then been transferred into the large saucepan, although Mrs Brunt swore that she had cleaned the pan out well before making the meal. The coroner asked her what she had used to clean the pan, but she admitted that it was only cold water. A man named Thomas Waller from Masbrough then told the inquest that a few weeks previously he had been asked by Mrs Emma Stockdale to get her a large tub for washing the families clothes in. Waller said that he was a coal miner but had previously worked at Beatsons Glass Works where he knew such tubs were sold for 9d. Although Waller found such a tub on the glass works premises and had the permission from the manager Mr Thornton to buy it, it was not quite empty. He asked another man to empty it for him, which he did, before washing out the tub in cold water. Waller admitted to the coroner that after it had been washed, he noted that there was some white residue left in it. Mary Ann Brunt, the wife of James Brunt’s son George told the court that her husband was a glass blower at the glass works and she had first used the tub for washing the week before. She had often seen such large tubs at her neighbours houses and when not used for washing they were often used to catch rain water in. Only since the accident had she been told that such tubs were used to keep arsenic and potash in at the glass works. The Rotherham Superintendent of Police Mr Gillot asked her if she used soap powder in the boiling of the clothes and she said that she did. He then told the coroner that Mr Baker had commented that the action of the soap had caused the arsenic to act more keenly than it would have normally done.

The coroner in summing up told the jury that he did not think it necessary to call any more witnesses before them, as there was little doubt as to how the child and the other persons came to be poisoned. It was obvious how it had got into the broth and evident that there was no criminal intention meant. However he condemned the selling of such tubs, and stated that he intended to write to the glass works about such indiscriminate sales. The coroner concluded that no doubt the firm would know about the case from the reports in the newspapers and may have already stopped selling such dangerous tubs. The jury returned  verdict that the child had been ‘poisoned by arsenic, inadvertently administered in a broth’. They added an appendage that:

‘the said jurors further say that the indiscriminate selling of casks which have contained arsenic by the firm of Messrs Beatson and Co., is dangerous and ought to be discontinued’.

 Thankfully we are more aware of how dangerous such substances such as arsenic is today, but to the Victorians it was often used by women as cosmetics to enhance their complexion. It was freely available to buy over the counter of chemists shops. Little did Mrs Brunt realise that she was risking the life of her nephew for such a pitiful amount of money. No doubt it would make her reflect on her ‘bargain’ and the huge cost it had made on her family.

Most Rotherham landlords had suffered assaults of some kind from their irate customers particularly when a lot of alcoholic liquor had been consumed, so it was undoubtedly seen as a risk that went with the job. However on Friday 27 September 1844 the Rotherham magistrates were revolted when they heard details of a particularly bad case of assault. Three prisoners, Robert Swan, John Twiby and Christopher Jennings were charged with the most aggravated assault on a pub landlord, James White of the Cross Keys on the Crofts. He told the court that about noon on the 10 September 1844, the three men went into his house and ordered some ale. He served them all and when he had finished, went about his work in the bar. Shortly afterwards his housekeeper, Hannah Willey came to him and told him that the men were being very loud and using  obscene and insulting language at her. They had taken some onions which she had been peeling, out of a bowl and thrown them on the floor. White went into the room where the men were and remonstrated with them, but they took no notice. When one of them called a female who was in the room a very rude name, the landlord ordered the three men to leave. One of them threw a pewter pint pot at him and Swan took the poker from the fireplace and struck him on the arm with it. At that point White became incensed and struggling hard with the men, he managed to put them out of the house, one by one. The men, angry at bring pushed out of the pub, continued to pound on the door and eventually managed to burst the door open. They then proceeded to take their revenge on White as they knocked him to the floor, and all three men violently kicked him about the head and body. They continued to beat him so badly that he was soon lying senseless on the floor.

The housekeeper, seeing what was happening to her master, ran out of the pub shouting ‘murder’. However the man called Jennings followed her as far as the Shambles, where he threatened to kill her if she told anyone who had committed the attack. Bravely she returned back to her masters house and a surgeon was called. The magistrate Mr Walker was also in Rotherham on the day the offence was committed, when he was informed of the attack at the Cross Keys. He was asked to take White’s deposition, as it was thought that the man was going to die. After hearing his statement, Mr Walker issued warrants for the arrest of all three prisoners. The attack had been so severe that it was quite a few hours later before James White recovered consciousness from the treatment he had received, and was taken to the hospital. The following day two constables named Lindley and Marshall were sent to arrest the men. They visited several pubs in Rotherham before receiving information that the men had been seen earlier drinking in the Butchers Arms, a public house also on the Crofts, and the two constables went to apprehend them. As soon as PC Lindley informed the men that he was about to arrest them for the attack on James White the previous day, they attacked him and Marshall. All three prisoners were very violent, and it was reported that Swan struck Lindley so hard that he knocked his hat off. The two constables were obliged to ask other people in the pub for help, in order to put the handcuffs on the three prisoners.

It was a full two weeks before White recovered enough to attend the court to give his evidence. As a result Swan, Twiby and Jennings were unable to be brought before the magistrates until Friday 27 September 1844. White described the violent attack and confirmed that they had all taken part in it. One of the magistrates asked him if the men were drunk, but he told them that, if they were, they showed no signs of it. A solicitor Mr Pashley defended the prisoners, and stated to the court that the men all deeply regretted their actions and if the bench would allow the case to be dismissed, his clients would pay Mr White ‘something handsome’ as compensation for his injuries. The magistrates informed him it was too serious a case to reach that sort of compromise. He fined all the men £5 each and ordered that they were to find securities for their good behaviour of £20 each, or stand committed to the House of Correction for two months with hard labour. John Twiby was then dismissed, before the magistrates heard the next case of assault. It was that committed on the two constables Lindley and Marshall in the execution of their duty by Robert Swan and Christopher Jennings. Mr Pashley, who appeared for the prisoners again stated that he felt that the ends of justice had already been served, by the previous conviction which had just taken place. He asked the bench not to proceed with two separate charges arising from the same assault.

One of the magistrates, Mr Bosville angrily pointed out that they were two distinct cases of assault and asked him:

‘did you mean to say that if one of the constables had died from the assault which had been made upon him, that they aught not to prosecute the two prisoners, because they had already been punished for the offence for which the constable went to apprehend them’.

Mr Pashley denied that this was what he meant. PC Lindley gave his account and told the court that on the 11 September he and PC Marshall went with a warrant to apprehend the three prisoners on the charge of assaulting Mr White. He described the way in which the men violently resisted arrest, saying that all three prisoners attacked them, however it was Swan and Jennings that had used the most violence before trying to make their escape. Thankfully he had already ordered the landlord of the Butchers Arms to lock the pub doors and the men were unable to get out. Marshall then took the stand and he confirmed his colleagues evidence. He stated that Jennings in particular had used great violence against him. The two prisoners, Robert Swann and Christopher Jennings were found guilty and ordered to pay £2 each or stand committed to the House of Correction for another two months, the two terms of imprisonment to run one after the other. Violent assaults continued in the public houses, until the Rotherham magistrates began to deal out custodial sentences for such attacks on landlords.

Throughout the nineteenth century it was quite common for very young children to be employed in a variety of positions. Parents found work for them almost as soon as they were old enough for employment, which was often as young as eight or ten years. Boys would often work with their parents in the vast number of workshops and factories of the town, many of them receiving no pay at all. Girls, if they were lucky, might be found work sewing, cleaning, taking in washing or other jobs within the domestic sphere. One such girl was Emma Allison who was aged 14 and the daughter of William Allison of Hooton Levitt near Maltby. In 1872 she had been employed for the past six months as a nurse to the children of a relative called Mr Wood, a farmer of Ravenfield. It was while she was working there that she made the acquaintance of another young person, 16 year old Alfred Hall who was employed as a farm servant. Despite their very young age the couple fell in love, and on the night of 14 May 1872 they decided to run away together. They left the home of Mr Wood at some time between 4 am and 5 am, taking with them their spare clothes in a bundle. It was barely light as they walked into the town of Rotherham, before catching a train to Doncaster, where they stayed for a few weeks living as man and wife. When the couple were missed, numerous enquiries were set in place by Emma’s distraught family and her friends. Despite their vigilance all their enquiries proved unsuccessful. Emma’s mother finally took out a warrant against Alfred Hall for the abduction of her daughter, but at that time the police were unable to find the couple.

On the morning of Monday 17 June, Emma arrived back at her mothers house at Hooton Levitt. She had gone to the house, not to re-assure her mother of her safety, but simply to pick up some more clothes. The police were called and the girl was detained at the house, where she was closely questioned about Hall’s whereabouts. She told the police and her mother that the pair had returned back to live in Rotherham, without the knowledge of anyone who knew them. Despite the local police’s diligence, the couple had continued to live as man and wife, under an assumed name at a house near Bow Bridge. Hall was now working as a miner at the Rotherham Main Colliery. Later that day, about 4.30 pm Inspector Horne of the Rotherham police force apprehended Hall as he was going home from his shift at the coal mine and he was arrested. When he was brought into court the following day, he appeared before magistrate James Yates Esq., charged with the abduction of Emma Allison without the consent of her parents. He pleaded guilty and was remanded for three days until the police made further enquiries. On Thursday 20 June 1872 Alfred Hall appeared once again in front of magistrate James Yates Esq., and Mr J Otter Esq., at the Rotherham Police Court. Mr Willis was the prosecution and Mr F Parker Rhodes acted for the prisoner.

Alfred Hall’s mother was at the court and she tried to defend her son for his actions. She told the magistrates that although he was 16 years of age, he was very immature, and that as a consequence was very easily led. Emma’s parents also gave evidence of their concern, when they were told by Mr Wood that their daughter had eloped with his farm servant. They described the search for the pair and their distress at not being able to find their daughter. The next witness was Emma’s employer Mr Wood who stated that the girl had been very well behaved whilst she had worked for him, and he truly believed that she had been strongly influenced to run away by Hall. At this point in the proceedings a private conversation took place between the two solicitors, the parents of both parties and the prisoner himself. Finally the chair of the magistrates Mr Otter addressed Alfred Hall directly. He told him:

‘Mrs Allison is disposed to withdraw this charge against you on one condition, and that is that you conduct yourself properly for the future. If ever you show the least disposition to induce, or try to induce this girl to go away with you again, depend upon it you will be severely punished and sent to prison. It will be much the worse for you if ever you attempt such a thing again. Now will you give the promise to do this?’

The prisoner told him that if he were liberated, he would never have anything more to do with Emma again. The prisoner was dismissed and it was reported that he left the court with his mother, who was taking him back to her house at Clifton near Conisborough. Once back home she kept her promise made to the magistrates that she would ‘keep an eye’ on him. The girl Emma who had not been in the courtroom, promised her parents on their return to Hooton Levitt, never to seek her amorous abductor ever again.

The previous year another little girl had been abducted and taken advantage of by a sinister man who lodged with the family. In November 1871, Benjamin Wadsworth aged 24 was staying at the Effingham Arms, Bradgate with landlord Jonas and Mary Roddis and their daughter Anne aged 13. He had been lodging at the Inn for three months and was working at a boiler works at Masbrough, but had recently become unemployed. Wadsworth had run short of money and when he asked Mary Roddis for a loan and she refused, he plotted his revenge. Anne’s mother sent her daughter for some fish around 7 pm on the evening of Tuesday 29 November and whilst she was on this errand, Anne met Wadsworth in a lane. He made certain proposals to her and induced the girl to go with him, and he kept her with him for the next two nights, wandering about in the area. Thankfully her father met the pair at 4pm on Thursday 31 November on the road between Barnsley and Sheffield, although Wadsworth quickly ran off. Jonas Roddis took the girl home and the police were called. When Anne was interviewed she told them that she did not want to go with Wadsworth, but he had used force and violence on her. Anne was asked if she had been unhappy living with her parents and she told the police that hadn’t and had ‘lived very comfortably at home with her mother and father’. A warrant was taken out for Wadsworth’s arrest and he was finally found in Sheffield on 2 December.

The following Monday he was brought before the magistrates at the West Riding Court at Rotherham Town Hall, charged with the crime of  abduction. The surgeon Mr William Saville of High Street Rotherham had found no ‘marks of violence upon any portion of the girl’s person’, but he had found ‘evidence that indecent liberties had been taken with her’. Wadsworth was found guilty and sent to take his trial at the next Assizes where he appeared before judge Mr Justice Quain on Monday 1 April  1872. His Lordship told the court  that:

‘This was one of the worst cases of the kind that had ever come under my notice. Because the mother refused to lend him some money, he actually out of spite, took away from her parents this little girl, defiled her in the most shameful manner and for several days dragged her round the countryside until she was rescued. A more atrocious offence than that it was difficult to conceive. I do not understand  how it was that he was not charged with rape, then I would have been able to inflict an more adequate punishment.

 Turning to the prisoner he told him ‘I will give you the utmost the law would allow and that is two years imprisonment’. Clearly the judges hands were tied because of the lesser charge of abduction and the medical evidence which revealed only that ‘indecent liberties’ had been taken. Nevertheless the vulnerability of these two young girls is horrific to our modern ears. Incredibly, it is a matter of fact that it was not until 1885 that the age of consent in Britain was raised to 16 years.

In 1851 there was a most notorious family that lived in Rotherham, called the Tattersall’s. Both mother and father were well known to the police authorities for their drunkenness, and it was said that their sons John aged 20, and William aged 18, had inherited their parents bad habits. They also had a younger brother called George who was only 14, but even at that young age showed signs of following in the family footsteps. On Monday 31 March the family was all drinking in the Swan Inn with several others, including a stove grate fitter called George Mortomley. As the evening wore on, he was invited back to the Tattersall’s house on Westgate to carry on drinking. Some time later, Mortomley left the Tattersall’s house and bought a half a gallon of ale from a nearby beer house called Jackson’s, which he took back to the house to carry on drinking. As is inevitable with alcohol, an argument broke out between the family and Mortomley, was accused of insulting Mrs Tattersall.

Mortomley, anxious to avoid a confrontation walked out of the house, but he had not got far before he was set upon by all three Tattersall brothers and thrown to the ground. Even the youngest, George wielded a poker and hit Mortomley three times over the head. The poor man tried to protect himself with his arms, which as a result were bruised and bleeding. To his horror he saw that the eldest William had something bright in his hand, as he told him ‘I’ll give you some of this’ and he received a vicious cut on the nose. Mortomley managed to get to his feet, but the two men and the boy continued beating and kicking at him, until he shouted ‘murder, murder’ at the top of his voice. Police constable Timms who was on duty not far away, heard the shouts, and rushed to the scene where he found Mortomley bleeding profusely from head wounds and the cut on his nose. He arrested William, John and George Tattersall and they were taken to the police cells and searched. William denied having a knife in his possession and none was found on him. He told the constable that Mortomley had started the fight in the first place. William claimed that he had brought some ale to the house, and shortly afterwards he upset their mother before abusing young George. A surgeon was called to deal with Mortomley wounds, which were quickly stitched up. When PC Innes returned back to where the attack had taken place, he found a clasp knife with blood on the blade. He showed the knife to Mortomley who identified it as his own. When William, George and John appeared in court the following day they were found guilty of cutting and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and all three were sent to take their trial at the next assizes. They  applied for bail, but it was only granted in the case of George and John.

When one of the assize judges, Mr Justice Williams discussed the case with the Grand Jury before the trial commenced in July 1851, he told them that from the depositions it would seem that William Tattersall was the only person to actually use the knife. However he told the jury that if they agreed, then the question they had to consider was how far the other two brothers were responsible for his having done so. Mr Justice Williams told them that:

‘if several persons are engage in assaulting another man, they are all answerable for the acts of each other in what is called common purpose. Therefore if you think there is evidence of common purpose then you must find a true bill against all three prisoners. But if you find there was no common purpose, and that William alone was intending grievous bodily harm, you must find a true bill against that prisoner alone and throw out the bills against the other two’. 

This Grand Jury agreed and the case against John and George Tattersall was dismissed.

Therefore William Tattersall stood alone in the dock at the York assizes on Tuesday 16 July 1851 before Mr Justice Platt, charged with the attack on George Mortomley. The prosecutor, Mr Pickering described the row which had developed involving ‘one of the worst families in the town’. PC Innes described how he had gone back to the scene of the crime and found the knife, which had been identified as one belonging to Mortomley. The constable suggested that knife had dropped through a hole in the mans pocket during the struggle, and the prisoner picked it up and used it. William’s defence counsel Mr Overend blamed the incident on the prisoners ‘intemperate parents’ who on the night in question were very drunk. He claimed that Mortomley attempted to render them even more inebriated, before he insulted Mrs Tattersall and was driven out of the house. Mr Overend suggested that Mortomley had taken the knife out to defend himself, and in the scuffle had cut himself on the nose, before William picked it up. A respectable, unnamed witness gave William a most excellent reference, before the jury found him not guilty on the charge of cutting and stabbing, but guilty of unlawful wounding. They also recommended him to mercy in view of his young age. The judge agreed and sentenced William to just one month’s imprisonment.

There is little doubt that if indeed this was one of the worst families in Rotherham, the people of the town and the legal authorities might have been hoping for a much longer sentence.

During the Victorian period it seems that instance of juvenile crime was on the increase in Rotherham and consequently the local magistrates were getting concerned about the escalating numbers of very young children being brought before them. The main problems was what to do with them, if and when they had been convicted. Most magistrates were aware of the disastrous result of sending young children to an adult prison. There they would mix with more hardened criminals which would guarantee a life of crime. On the morning of Monday 27 January 1845, two little sisters named Bridget and Sarah Mullins whose respective ages were 11 and 7 were brought before the magistrates charged with stealing seventeen and a half yards of blue satin from the shop of Mr Henry Wigfield, of High Street in the town. Magistrate Mr Walker explained to other members of the bench that the elder of the two girls, Bridget had been brought before the court on five or six charges of felony a short time ago. Hoping for anything which would reclaim her from a life of crime, he had placed her into the asylum at the Rotherham workhouse. Mr Walker admitted that he did not know how long she stayed there, but the previous Thursday Bridget was brought before him with her sister, charged with the present crime. He told the bench that the two children lived with their mother, who travelled aimlessly about the country committing various thefts. She had brought them up to commit similar crimes and his proof was that when he examined the woman, she knew most of the local receivers of stolen goods. The evidence of several witnesses was heard before the older girl was asked if she had anything to say. Bridget told the court that it was not her that had stolen the blue satin, but another older girl who had accompanied her. She claimed that this was a girl called Quinn, who had been in the Rotherham Workhouse as the same time as she had been there. Bridget had travelled around the country with Quinn for several months, and it was her that had taught her to steal. The Chief Constable Mr Bland told the court that ‘they could place no reliance an anything the girl said, as she was one of the most artful children possible’. However under cross-examination he admitted that he had tried to use her to arrest one of the most notorious receivers of stolen goods in Rotherham. The eleven year old Bridget had agreed to act for him and Mr Bland had given her strict instructions as how to capture this person, but instead she had ‘sold him over to them’ and that he had been ‘regularly duped by her’. The oldest girl, Bridget was sent for trial, whilst the younger, Sarah was discharged. It was reported that the mother of the two children was in the courtroom and said to be ‘a hard looking wretch’ who appeared perfectly unmoved during the hearing of the case, and the remarks made by the bench. When Bridget Mullins was brought before the Sheffield Sessions later that month she too was discharged, on the promise of her mother to leave the town.

 In another case, an even younger child brought before the Rotherham bench, which newspapers of the period described as a ‘painful case’. This was a little girl named Sarah Hutchinson aged only 9 years of age of Swinton Common, charged with stealing a bottle of sweets from the shop of Mr Cooper of Wath. On Monday 18 November 1861 she was brought to the court house and in order for the magistrates to see her and to give her evidence, she had to stand on a form. The Sheffield and Rotherham Independent dated Tuesday 19 November stated that ‘the little creature did not seem to understand in the least her position’.  The court was told that the previous Tuesday she had stolen the large jar of sweets and later the jar was found in her possession and she was taken into custody. One of the magistrates, Mr Bosville asked if it was necessary for such a little girl to be brought into court, and why she could not have been dealt with at home by her parents. A respectable looking man then approached the bench and told the magistrates that he was Sarah’s father. He worked as a mechanic and was a widower with five other children at home. Mr Hutchinson stated that Sarah was constantly ‘roaming’ at night, and that she had stolen small items before. He assured the bench that he had done his utmost to reform her. Mr Bosville asked him if he would contribute towards the child’s support if they sent her to a reformatory. Mr Hutchinson however, after a little hesitation stated that he did not want his children to be parted, and he would try her a little longer. In an effort to teach the girl a lesson she was given up to him, after just a short detention in one of the Rotherham police cells.

In May of 1860 the Rotherham bench were becoming all too aware that young children were pawning items for their parents or employers. The magistrates and legal authorities had tried to ban such behaviour in the town, but it was very hard to legislate against it. However this case shows that some young people were pawning stolen items for their own gain. On the morning of 7 May a boy called John Crowder aged just 13, was brought into the court house. He worked for local pawnbroker Mr Bibbs, who had charged him with stealing three gold rings. Mr Whitfield was the prosecutor and the boy was defended by Mr Hirst. Before any evidence was heard, Mr Hirst stated that the boys employer was reluctant to press the case against him, but he would be quite satisfied if the boy was simply to be ordered to be whipped. The bench stated that they had better hear all the evidence before deciding on the boys punishment. Pawnbroker Mr Bibbs took the stand and told the court that the boy had been employed by him in December 1859 on trial as an apprentice, but he had never been officially bound to him. He said that in consequence of information which had been given to him on Saturday 28 April, he found three gold rings to be missing from his shop. He told Crowder that he had heard that he had given a boy named Joseph Hamlett two of the rings to sell for him. Crowder denied the charge but admitted that he had stolen one of the rings. When he was asked what he had done with it, the boy told him that he still had the ring in his possession. Mr Bibbs asked him to show it to him and when he produced it, Mr Bibbs identified it as being one that had been pledged to him. The rings had been kept in a plate chest in an upstairs room above the shop. Crowder told his employer that when he took the ring, he tore up the ticket belonging to it and had burnt the remains in the fireplace. The next day the boy named Hamlett visited the shop, and in the presence of Crowder told Mr Bibbs that the two remaining missing gold rings were in pledge at another Rotherham pawnshop run by a Mr Hammond. Both boys were taken into custody but the case against Hamlett was weak, and he was discharged a few days later.

Mr Bibbs told the court that under normal circumstances Crowder would not have access to the plate chest, as it was always kept locked and the key was kept on his own watch chain. However he admitted that when articles were required from it, he would give Crowder the key to unlock it. The next witness was Joseph Hamlett who gave evidence that he was fourteen years of age, and was an errand boy for a shoemaker at Rotherham. He told the magistrates that six weeks previously he had been given a gold ring by the young prisoner and asked to pawn it for 5s. Hamlett refused to do so, and urged Crowder to have nothing to do with it. About a fortnight later Crowder had asked him to pledge two plain, simple gold wedding band at Mr Hammond’s shop. In return for these services the prisoner gave him a shilling and some cakes. Police enquiries established that the two stolen rings were found at Hammonds shop. When taken into charge for the offences the prisoner had admitted the offences. His solicitor Mr Hirst pointed this out to the magistrates and suggested that the best way of dealing with the case was for the boy to be whipped. He also blamed the pawnbroker Mr Hammond, who had not only taken rings in pledge from the prisoner, a young boy, but also because he knew very well that the prisoner was the servant of another pawnbroker. He stated that ‘if such conduct was to be allowed, pawnbrokers could be robbed from each other of any amount’. The magistrates stated that having listened to the evidence, they had no power to have the boy whipped, but they would give their decision at the rising of the court. Ultimately, at the end of the session they ordered the boy to be discharged.

The town and districts around Rotherham regularly celebrated village feasts which were meant to celebrate and unify members of the community. Held on the same month every year, the villages celebrated with flags in all the principal streets. Usually a fun-fair would attend, with swings, cocoanut shies and sweet stalls and often would include sports activities where local teams competed with each other with hurdles, races and tug-of-war games. Undoubtedly it was a time for enjoyment and merriment, but in reality however they were often occasions for drunkenness, debauchery and the settling of old scores. This was aided by the fact that they were usually held on village greens or in fields in close proximity to local public houses. On Monday 21 August 1837 Rawmarsh celebrated its own annual feast where thankfully the weather had been kind. About 11 pm a group of men were still drinking at a public house, which was run by a Mr Dickinson, when suddenly a cry of ‘murder’ was heard from outside. Two men, Benjamin Baynes and William Brown went out to see what the problem was, and saw several persons in the middle of the road attacking a man on the floor. Baynes approached the group, hoping to put a stop to the fight, but before he could say a word a man came up to him and stabbed him. Baynes dropped to the ground and cried out to Brown ‘I am a dead man’. Brown could not believe the speed with what had just happened to his friend. He had clearly seen two men, who he knew to be George Evans aged 19 years and William Wilson aged 22, stab his friend without any provocation. Suddenly the two men were in front of him and they lashed out at him and before he could cry out, he too was stabbed. Surgeon Mr Blythman of Swinton was quickly called to attend to both Baynes and Brown, and he found that Baynes had two serious wounds which had been inflicted with considerable force. One of them had opened up his cheek, but the worst was about three inches long on his left side, from which a portion of bowel was protruding. Thankfully Brown had only minor injuries, which were quickly treated by the surgeon. The police were called, but they found that  it was very difficult to get an accurate picture of the events of the stabbing as they took what statements they could from witnesses.

Early the next morning Chief Constable Mr John Bland of Rotherham arrested George Evans at Elsecar near Barnsley, who strongly denied the charge of attempted murder. He claimed that rather than stabbing anyone else, he himself had been attacked whilst was walking home from the feast by some men he did not know. Despite his denial, Mr Bland arrested him and placed him in the custody of Police Sergeant Henry Womack, who took him to a public house belonging to George Hirst at Elsecar. Bland ordered Womack to keep Evans there, whilst he went the short distance to Tankersley in search of the other prisoner, William Wilson. When he was charged, Wilson also flatly denied the stabbing, stating that it was Evans who had stabbed both men. He told Bland that he had nothing to do with either of the attacks. On the contrary he had been on his way home from the feast when he was overtaken by Evans, who admitted to stabbing the two men. Meanwhile back at Elsecar, almost as soon as Mr Bland had left the public house, Evans made a determined assault on the police sergeant and succeeded in escaping. Womack doggedly pursued his prisoner and managed to find him a short distance away, hiding in a wood. Witnesses then described what they saw as ‘a desperate fight’ taking place between Womack and Evans. A local man called Benjamin Hartley intervened and held the police sergeant back whilst his prisoner ran off and disappeared. For several weeks Evans was on the run, and the police were unable to find him, despite several reported sightings. It was not until Monday 3 September when Evans was finally recaptured at a house in Elsecar. However once again the prisoner had no intention of being taken into custody quietly, and there was another desperate struggle to get him in handcuffs. It was only with the greatest difficulty that he was finally subdued and brought into the police cells at Rotherham. By this time Benjamin Hartley was also in custody at Rotherham charged with aiding Evans, a prisoner to make good his escape.

George Evans and William Wilson were brought into the court at Rotherham on Monday 4 September 1837 in front of magistrates Dr Milner and John Fullerton Esq., on a charge of ‘cutting with intent to murder’.  Several witnesses gave evidence of the stabbing, including one called James McCabe and the man arrested for aiding Evans to escape, Benjamin Hartley. They stated that Evans had clearly confessed to both of them that he had stabbed both Baynes and Brown. Wilson’s defence also placed the guilt securely on Evans shoulders, but nevertheless despite the strong evidence, both prisoners were found guilty and committed to take their trial at York assizes. Meanwhile on 13 November Benjamin Baynes, one of the victims who had been stabbed, was also brought into Rotherham court before magistrates, Rev. W Alderson, Col. Fullerton and Viscount Howard. He was charged with an assault upon a woman called Alice Thompson and stealing a pair of shoes from her house. The assault was particularly despicable as she was someone who had taken pity on him and who had tried to help him after he had been attacked. Baynes was charged with an intent to commit rape on her, found guilty and ordered to appear at the West Riding Sessions to take his trial. On Friday 12 January 1838 Benjamin Baynes was given three months imprisonment for this assault on Mrs Thompson.

The names of George Evans and William Wilson were on the calendar for the Assizes in March 1838, but the Grand Jury found that there was simply not enough evidence against Wilson, and he was quickly discharged. As a result of this, only Evans was brought before QC Thomas Starkie Esq., at York on Saturday 10 March. Evans defence counsel’s tactics was to blacken the character of his accuser Baynes, who through skilful cross examination, was forced to admit in court of the attempt to commit rape on Mrs Thompson. The second man stabbed in the attack, William Brown, gave evidence that he had witnessed the stabbing of his friend Baynes, and had clearly identified Evans as the attacker. The surgeon, Mr Blythman told the court that the injured man’s wounds were so serious that he did not expect him to live. Police Sergeant Womack and Constable John Wild gave evidence of the amount of violent resistance offered by the prisoner, when he was apprehended. Evans pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed that he had not resisted arrest, but had been merely defending himself. To almost everyone’s surprise, including that of the prisoner himself, he was found not guilty and acquitted.

The holding of these local feasts continued for many years, but acts of violence during the celebrations was becoming such a common element to the occasion that later that year a local newspaper commented upon it. The Sheffield and Rotherham Independent dated Saturday 24 August 1838 reported:

‘last Sunday was Rawmarsh Feast and it is reported to have passed off more orderly than is usually the case, there not being any pitched battles, which all to often have disgraced this occasion’

The tradition of holding village feasts eventually disappeared during modern times and the reason was not hard to find. In all probability the ‘pitched battles’ where old scores were settled had finally become too much for the local authorities and the holding of such celebrations gradually faded.

19th century Rotherham, like many towns of the time, had its fair share of poverty and slum living. Many parents with little money tried hard to look after their children, among such poor surroundings, but as always there were exceptions. Cases of parental abuse appeared many times before the Rotherham magistrates, as they did nationwide. In January 1889 a middle aged woman called Catherine Hazel was brought before the magistrates and found guilty of the neglect of her twin children, John and Catherine, born on 4 July the previous year. The woman, who was also known as Catherine McHugh, was renown for her drunken behaviour in the area and would often beg in the streets for clothing for her 5½ month old twins. Charitable persons who gave her donations of clothes did not realise that they would go straight into pawn shops, and the profit would be spent on alcohol. On 27 December 1888, the police surgeon Dr Cobban and Sergeant Hepworth visited the house following reports on the condition of the two children. He found the house filthy and the two children in a dirty and neglected condition. There was no sign of the mother, but Sergeant Hepworth soon located her in a drunken state at the nearby Wellington Inn. She was returned back to the house where Dr Cobban had found one of the children downstairs lying on the kitchen table, wrapped in a portion of an old blanket and placed on a dirty pillow. From what he could see, Dr Cobban thought the child had been lying in the same place for a week without having been moved. The second twin was upstairs, and wrapped in some other equally filthy material, and both children were naked, apart from a chemise, under the old clothing wrapped around them.

Dr Cobban asked Hazel to bring the baby downstairs, however she was so befuddled with drink, that she could not find the baby until it cried. Two bottles were handed to the surgeon  by the sergeant for his examination, which were ordinary pint beer bottles fitted up with a teat. One of them had been placed  on the kitchen table at the side of the child. The surgeon called Hazel’s attention to the state of the bottles and she told him that the children regularly got plenty of fresh milk. However the woman admitted that she had neglected washing the children recently, as she claimed she had not been very well for the last few days. Dr Cobban returned to the police station where he reported the incident to Captain Burnett, the Chief Constable and he quickly made arrangements to have both children removed to the workhouse. They were removed in a cab by Captain Burnett and Dr Cobban between eleven and twelve o’clock that night. The children were bathed and given clean clothing and blankets by the workhouse authorities on their arrival.  Upon admission the workhouse medical officer had examined the children, and found them both to be in a very emaciated and neglected condition, suffering from chest infections which he thought was bronchitis. Both had abrasions and rashes on the skin, particularly around the legs. Dr Cobban asked the workhouse master to weigh the children and found that Catherine weighed 9½ lbs and John 9 lbs, when the usual weight for children of that age should have been around 14 – 15 lbs. Hazel had told the doctor that the children had been born on 14 July 1888 and they had weighed 6 lbs at birth. Therefore in nearly six months they had only gained 3 lbs each and the medical officer could confirm there was no organic or wasting disease to account for the loss of weight.

Catherine Hazel was brought into the Rotherham Borough Police Courthouse on Thursday 3 January 1889 charged with the neglect of her two children. The prosecution was Mr Neal of Sheffield, a solicitor instructed by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. He told the court that he would lay the whole of the facts before the magistrates, and asked them to exercise their discretion as to the punishment of the prisoner. Mr Neal respectfully submitted that it was however about as bad a case as could possibly be brought into court. He said that if needed he would call the woman’s partner McHugh into the court to show what money he had handed to the prisoner to keep the children. He said this was on average 18s a week, most of which the prisoner spent on alcohol. Mr Neal did not think the bench would have the slightest doubt that the woman had the means to care for the children, but her constant state of drunkenness was the reason why the children were left in the state he had found them. Therefore he asked for the harshest punishment to be inflicted on her.

Dr Cobban gave the medical evidence as he told the court that the children had been weighed that morning at the workhouse. Even in the few days there the children had put on weight, the boy weighing 11¼ lbs and the girl 11¾ lbs, each having gained around 2 lbs with the regular feeding they had received. He described his visit to the house on Oil Mill Fold which he said was not even ‘a fit lodging for a pig to be kept in’. When he described the marks on the children’s legs, Hazel interrupted and claimed that the children had thrush and that was what had caused the rashes, but Dr Cobban denied this, and stated again that the rashes were caused by dirt and neglect.  When Hazel was asked if she had any comment to make, she said that the children were not wearing any clothes because she had been washing them. Dr Cobban stated that the only food provided for the children was milk, which was given to them out of  the dirty bottles, which he produced in court. He claimed that the bottles had been in a filthy stinking condition, much worse than they had been presented in court, for they had since been washed. Dr Cobban said that the bottles were dirty and lying about. Although he had seen other mothers use ordinary bottles for feeding their children, he was of the opinion that any milk put into these bottles was unfit for children in their condition. One of the bottles on his first visit to the house had black sediment about two inches deep, and the smell of it was bad enough to knock a person over. The bottle had been found at the side of the child found downstairs. When he called the prisoners attention to the dirty state of the bottles, she stated that she would clean them and repeated that the children had plenty of milk.  Dr Cobban admitted that both children were in such a state of danger to their lives when he ordered their removal, that he was convinced that only one of them would recover.

Police Sergeant Hepworth told the court that following his and Dr Cobban’s visit to the house, Captain Burnett had sent him back to the house around 4.30 pm accompanied by Inspector Parkin the Inspector of Nuisances. The woman and the house had been searched and a total of twenty nine pawn tickets were found for various items of children’s clothes. However the prisoner denied getting the clothes as donations, and claimed that the clothes had been her own property and that she had bought them for her children. When Hazel was asked in court if she had anything to say, the prisoner stated that the pawn tickets were for the Sunday frocks of the children. The sergeant also described the state of the house and the wretchedness of the children, before he stated the real reason for the negligence. In his search of the house he had found documentation from the London, Edinburgh and Glasgow Insurance Company which had insured both the children’s lives for 30s each [the equivalent of £164 today]. The policies were dated from July and August 1888. Sergeant Hepworth told the court that he had known Hazel for some years and that she had a reputation for drinking and consistently neglected the children. Charles Edwin Parker, the Nuisance Inspector, told the court that Hazel had lived in the house, which was an ordinary cottage for the past 30 years and it was filthy beyond description. He spoke to the existence of excrement in the rooms and other signs of abominations which rendered the house unfit for a human being. He told the court that since the woman had been in custody, at the request of the owner he had it thoroughly cleaned, the bedding burned and every room scoured and whitewashed. Captain Burnett claimed that Hazel was well known to the police and that had been warned several time for begging in the streets for clothes and money for her children. He also corroborated the witnesses statement, adding that the stench of the house was intolerable and the condition of the children appalling. As to food in the house there had only been a morsel of a crust of bread weighing only ½ lb. Thomas Hall Revel the assistant manager of a pawn shop proved that most of the pawn tickets had been for children clothing. When Hazel was asked if she had anything to say, she again repeated that the pawn tickets were for Sunday frocks of the children. John Albert Bailey of College Road, an agent for the Prudential Assurance Company said in September of the previous year he had received proposals from Hazel to insure the children. However Hazel had been unsuccessful on this occasion, as the proposals had been declined by his Company.

After some conversation between Mr Neal and the clerk of the court on the question of the ability of the prisoner to provide food for the children, the prisoner pleaded not guilty. She told the bench that rather than neglecting the children, she had given them what the doctor had ordered. At first it had been half water and half milk, and then as they were two months old, one third water and two thirds milk. Since then she had given them milk which was undiluted. The clerk asked her if she wanted to be tried by the magistrates (rather than be sent to the assizes where she would have no doubt received a stiffer sentence). She replied that she would prefer to be tried there, and then made quite a scene in the courtroom by crying out that she wanted to see her children. She complained loudly that she might have neglected the house over the Christmas holidays, but claimed that she had never neglected her children deliberately. Hazel said that she had always washed the twins and tried to keep them clean, but she had no friends and no one came to see her, apart from an old woman. The reason for this had been that McHugh had been very violent towards her and refused to have anyone else in the house. Police Sergeant Hepworth confirmed that McHugh and the prisoner were not married, although they had lived together for about ten years. The Mayor showed little sympathy as he ordered her to be imprisoned for four months with hard labour, and ordered the children to remain at the workhouse. He commented that the bench could do nothing to stop the system of infant insurance ‘which was becoming a perfect pest’ and he regretted that nothing could be done to stop the practice. Hazel was then removed from the court.

Women in the Victorian era had few options to maintain themselves if they were left widows with small children. They would only have two choices, one was to would be find a job, bearing in mind they would need childcare, or throw themselves on the mercy of the guardians of the workhouse and claim parish relief. Mary Elizabeth Heaps, aged 30 found herself in such a predicament in 1886 when having lived at Canal Wharf at Parkgate with her husband, he died and left her without any money The workhouse guardians granted her relief of 3s a week and agreed to educate her two children. Heaps decided that she would need to supplement this meagre income and applied to Mr Robert Hill, a landlord to ask if she could rent one of his houses on Kenneth Street, Rotherham. He told her that she could and the rent would be 3s 9d a week. Heaps and her children moved in, but what the landlord (or the guardians) did not know, was that Heaps intended to run it as a brothel with another woman, a prostitute called Mary Park, otherwise known as ‘Poll Pitt’. However it was not long before Heaps decided that she would need to involve other women to work for her, and that’s when she came up with the idea of using her own niece. Maud Hancox was a pretty girl, who had just turned 15 years of age on 18 March 1886 and lived with her mother at Sheepbridge, near Chesterfield.

Heaps visited her sister Bertha on Monday 12 July when she was told that her sister had struck Maud following a row. When she decided to return back to Rotherham a few days later Heaps asked the girl to walk with her to the nearby train station at Chesterfield. She  then suggested that Maud come and spend a few days with her in Rotherham. Heaps told her that she was so lonely after the death of her husband, and was pleased for Maud to come and stay and keep her company. The girl wanted to go back and tell her mother where she was going, but Heaps talked her out of it and gave her the money to buy a ticket to Sheffield. On the return journey back from Chesterfield they got to talking about love and Heaps told Maud that she knew of a young man that ‘would suit her nicely’. She told her niece that she would take her to meet the young man and added ominously that ‘if he wanted to do anything to her, she was not to be afraid’.  When they arrived at Rotherham, Heaps spoke to two men outside the Effingham Arms in the town centre, before going to the house on Kenneth Street. Later that evening the two women went to the Clarence Music Hall in Rotherham where they met again the two men who had been outside the Effingham Arms. When they returned to the house on Kenneth Street, Heaps went upstairs with one of the men called Scott, leaving the other unnamed man downstairs in the front room with her niece. After a short while Scott returned downstairs and soon after Heaps asked Maud if Scott had given her anything, to which she replied that he hadn’t. Maud was then instructed to go and ask Scott for money for her aunt, and he gave her 5s which she quickly handed over.

The next day Heaps took the girl with her again to the Rotherham Theatre and whilst they were there, she pointed out a man called George Wilkinson, who she waved at and he came over. Heaps introduced Maud to Wilkinson and told him ‘George you have asked me several times to get you a young woman, well here is one for you’. Wilkinson bought them several rounds of drink, before they all returned back to the house on Kenneth Street where they continued to party. On 17 July prostitute Mary Park and her aunt went to a public house called the Low Drop Spirit Vaults in Rotherham with Scott and stayed there till closing time. Wilkinson, who was a barman there, returned back to Kenneth Street with the others. He spoke to Maud and they made arrangements to go out the following night to the Crown Inn on Greasbrough Road where they met Heaps and another man she did not know. Wilkinson asked Heaps for the key to her house in Kenneth Street, which she gave to him. Maud and Wilkinson then went back to the house where, what was described as ‘improper intercourse’ took place. On her return Heaps questioned the girl on what had happened and told her that she would get her some contraceptive medicine. The following day Heaps then took Maud to a druggist shop in the town centre run by Mr Robert Laycock, and had a conversation with him while Maud waited outside. Later that day Laycock came to the house with the medicine and tried to have intercourse with Maud, but she resisted his advances. Later she complained to her aunt, who told her that Laycock had been a good friend to her and that he would have given her 5s for a kiss and a cuddle.

The following night, 19 July Wilkinson went to the house and took Maud and her aunt to the theatre and once again he paid for everything. After returning back to the house on Kenneth Street, he promised to pay a dressmaker to make Maud a new dress. On 24 July Wilkinson arrived at the house to take Maud, her aunt and her daughter Amy to the Chesterfield Races. They were accompanied by the man called Scott and Maud’s mother Bertha joined them later in the day. Heaps and Maud spent the night at her sister’s house and after some conversation with her daughter, Bertha told her she was not to go back to Rotherham with Heaps. However when she told her aunt, Heaps replied that she must do so. The following morning Heaps had gone, and soon after Scott arrived in her mothers absence to take Maud back to Rotherham. Maud was disconcerted when she arrived at Kenneth Road and found her younger sister Florence, aged 14 years with Heaps. About midnight Maud was disturbed by the sound of her mother and her aunt shouting at each other, and soon after a constable arrived. Both Maud and Florence were removed by the constable and placed back into her mothers care. Shortly afterwards the mother and her two daughters returned back to Chesterfield where Maud received a ‘good thrashing’. The following day she disappeared and Mrs Hancox reported the case to the Chief Constable of Rotherham asking him to find her daughter.

Mary Elizabeth Heaps was arrested and brought before the magistrates at the Borough Police Court, Rotherham on Wednesday 11 August 1886 charged with three offences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. This Act had been brought into effect the year before, which raised the age of consent in Britain from the age of 13 to 16 years. Heaps was charged that on 17 July she had kept the girl Maud Hancox, under the proscribed age, unlawfully on her premises. She was also charged with procuring the girl for an unlawful purpose with George Wilkinson and aiding and abetting Wilkinson. Wilkinson of Millgate was also in court and he was charged with a felonious assault on Maud Hancox, a girl under 16 years of age. Mr H H Hickmott was the prosecution under instruction from the Treasury and the hearing of the case took several hours. It seems that Heaps was well known in the town as a prostitute. Maud Hancox gave evidence, proudly wearing the new green dress which Wilkinson had paid for. She told the court that whilst staying at her aunts house, she had seen several different men coming to the house. Her aunt had tried to persuade her to ‘go with them’, but she refused. Her evidence lasted for the whole of the morning. After lunch, Maud was cross examined by Mr Pawson who defended the two prisoners. He asked the witness if she had told Wilkinson that she was 18 or asked him to buy her a present, all of which she denied. The girl disingenuously told the court that she and Wilkinson were now sweethearts and were very fond of each other. She admitted that she had recognised all the badness in her aunts house, but did not wish to go back to live at her mother house. Maud appeared to be been quite satisfied with the life she was leading.

Prostitute Mary Park was the next witness and she entered the court with a black eye. She told the court that she was the wife of Henry Park a labourer of Millgate Rotherham and that her maiden name had been Pitt. She admitted to knowing Heaps, and said that she had stayed at the house on Kenneth Street and therefore was well aware that it was being used as a brothel. She stated that in a conversation with Heaps the woman had told her that her niece was under 16 years of age, and the witness told her that she would get into trouble as the girl was too young. Maud’s mother Bertha Hancox next gave evidence and she told the court that she had no idea that her sister was a prostitute in Rotherham, or she would not have let her daughter stay with her.  She said that on 12 July her sister was staying at her house when mother and daughter had quarrelled. Later she said she saw Maud and her sister going to the railway station which was quite near to the house and when her daughter did not return, just presumed that Maud was spending some time in Rotherham with her aunt. Mrs Hancox said that she had joined Heaps at the Chesterfield Races and from what she saw on the racecourse, she told her sister that Maud was not to go back to Rotherham. Later that day she realised that her daughter was missing and she went to the railway station where she saw Maud and her sister in the company of the man Scott. They ran away when they saw her approach. Mrs Hancox went home to pack some things and arrived at Rotherham just before midnight, where she brought both her daughters away. Wilkinson told the court that the girl had assured him that she was 18 years of age and that he had believed her. Mr Hickmott for the prosecution told the court that the prisoners Heaps and Wilkinson had endeavoured to make the girl believe that he was ‘courting’ her when in fact it was a foul conspiracy to bring about the girl’s seduction. At this stage the two prisoners were remanded for a fortnight.

On Thursday August 26 1886 the case came up for another hearing. There had been so much publicity which had attracted much interest, that the area around the courthouse and the court itself were crowded with local people. The magistrates agreed that the case into Heaps should be heard first. Mr Pawson the solicitor for the defence made a point that under Section One of the Criminal Law Amendment Act all statements should be corroborated, and as a result the birth certificate for Maud Hancox was produced. The certificate proved that the girl was exactly 15 years and 5 months old. However Mr Pawson could produce no actual evidence that the prisoner had procured the girl for immoral purposes. On the contrary he claimed that Maud had told him that she wanted to stay in Rotherham and did not want to go back to Sheepbridge to her mother. He claimed that the girl ‘was not as virtuous as she might have been’ and her conduct ‘was not that of a modest girl’. The chair of the magistrates ordered that the court would now hear the case against the male prisoner. George Wilkinson’s statement to the court implied that he was not as beguiled by his young sweetheart as she claimed to be with him. He stuck to his statement that Maud had told him that she was 18 years of age and having seen her in the company of Heaps, a known prostitute, he had naturally assumed that she was in the same position. Both prisoners were found guilty before being formally sent for trial at the assizes. They applied for bail, which was granted, Wilkinson in the sum of £20 and Heaps in the sum of £50.

On Wednesday 17 November 1886 the two prisoners were brought before judge Mr Justice Hawkins at the Crown Court at York Castle. Mr Beverley was the defence for Wilkinson and Heaps was undefended. The prosecution, Mr Lofthouse went over the evidence of the way in which Heaps had brought the girl to Rotherham, and stated that he had no doubt that she had brought her back ‘for the purpose of introducing her to men’. Maud gave evidence that her aunt had wished her to have intercourse with other men and that when she refused, her aunt had used abusive language towards her. Heaps in her own defence stated that she had a lot of financial trouble since her husband died and she was left with two children to maintain. Mr Beverley on behalf of Wilkinson stated that from the girls demeanour, his client had reasonable cause for believing that Maud was more than 16 years of age. After hearing all the evidence both prisoners were found guilty, but the jury asked for mercy on behalf of Wilkinson. In passing sentence Mr Justice Hawkins told Wilkinson that he had no doubt that Heaps had offered the girl to him, and if he had used any force he should have punished him with more severity. He could not overlook the fact that Wilkinson knew that the house on Kenneth Street was being used as a brothel, that Heaps was a prostitute and that he had asked her to get a girl for him. His lordship then sentenced him to four months imprisonment with hard labour. Turning next to Heaps the judge said that her offence was a wicked and abominable one and that people like her were about the most dangerous pests which were allowed to exist in society. He told her:

‘Your offence was exaggerated by the fact that the poor child who was debauched in your own house, was your own sister’s little daughter. You have fraudulently induced the child to leave her mothers house to go to an infamous brothel. I hope the sentence I am about to pass will be a warning to other wicked women, who like yourself have endeavoured to beguile poor unprotected children into a life of prostitution. I cannot find words to express my  great indignation at your conduct’.

He then sentenced her to 18 months imprisonment with hard labour.