During the Victorian era the custom of having a ‘respectable’ funeral was considered to be very important, as it was seen to be a great disgrace to have to apply for their loved one to be buried by the local workhouse guardians. These funerals consisted of  the deceased being given a cheap, paupers funeral and buried in a communal grave. Consequently burial clubs, where working class people could pay a small amount each week to pay for a funeral became extremely popular.  At a time of very high death rates, particularly among young children, it allowed parents to give them what was considered a decent send off.  Most of these clubs started very informally by churches, public houses and trade unions where members would pay just a few pennies each week. When a relative of one of the members died, a lump sum would be given to them to pay funeral expenses, and in some cases buy suitable funeral clothes. The schemes were so successful that it was not long before larger and more formal organisations developed similar schemes, and it was one of those that came to the attention of the Rotherham magistrates in August 1844. The Society of the Grand United Order of Oddfellows had a burial club which ensured that member’s families were entitled to £10 upon death, and if a member’s wife had died, he would be paid £7 towards her funeral expenses. No one could anticipate that such society’s with such praiseworthy aims would become a breeding ground for abuse and fraud.

On 3 April 1844 at a meeting of Society members, a decision was made that £50 would be deposited in the Sheffield and Rotherham Banking Company, at the bottom of the High Street, Rotherham for that purpose. It was agreed that the money would be kept in the bank and only paid out for the benefit of the members of the local society. A man called Michael Steer had been appointed the district master of the Rotherham branch of the charitable Society, and the money was deposited by himself and two other members, John Handley and the secretary Thomas Wightson the following day. Despite his pride in his position and the respect for that august body, Steer could not resist a little thievery when the opportunity presented itself. Just over a month later on 28 May, Michael Steer went to the bank, and produced the passbook in which the account with the Society was held. He told the clerk that he was the district master and that he had been authorised to draw out £10 on account. (This small figure to us, equals a substantial amount of money in those days) He signed a cheque on behalf of the club, and the cash was given to him. When no enquiries had been made and it looked as if his unauthorised withdrawal had not been noticed, Steer couldn’t resist trying again. On 3 July he went to the bank and drew out another £10. Although no reason is given, by 2 August Steer was no longer the district master,   although he claimed to be to the clerk, when he withdrew a third amount of £12. At the time he told the clerk that ‘he had a great deal of money to pay out on behalf of the company, but he hoped shortly to have some money to deposit’. Steer continued to be a member of the society, but he managed to cover his tracks so well that the fraud was not discovered until 10 August. The Rotherham police were informed and William Dyson a clerk at the bank was interviewed and he gave them a statement. He said that on 28 May, Michael Steer had produced the passbook, in which the account with the society was held, and said that he wanted to draw out some money. He continued:

‘I asked him if he was the president of the society and he answered that he was the district master, which I understood to be the same thing. He said that he had monies to pay out on account of the club. I gave him £10 and he signed a cheque on behalf of the club, which I now produce. On the 3 July he came again for a further £10. He produced the pass book and signed the cheque as before. On 2 August he came again, and said he wanted £12, as he had a great deal of money to pay out on account of the club. He told me  that the funds were heavily laid upon, but that he hoped shortly to have money to pay in. If Steer had not produced the pass book, and assumed to have authority from the society to draw moneys, I should not have paid it to him; or if he had not signed the cheques on behalf of the United Order of Odd Fellows, I should not have paid him the money’.

On hearing Dyson’s evidence Steer was arrested by John Bland, the chief constable of Rotherham. He was charged with fraud from a bank using false pretences. Two days later on Monday 12 August 1844 the prisoner was brought into the Magistrates Court at Rotherham.

The first to give evidence was William Carson of Sheffield, who had been appointed the treasurer of the Society on 3 July 1844. He outlined the duties of a treasurer under the Society’s rules, and told the court that that ‘no part of the funds of the society could be taken out of the bank, without the treasurer’s sanction and consent’. Carson categorically stated that he had never authorised Steer to withdraw any money in the Society’s name, and that Steer was well aware of the rules. Another Society member, John Handley who had accompanied Steer when he deposited the initial £50, confirmed the previous witnesses testimony. Thomas Wightson of Masbrough, the secretary of the Order also confirmed that £50 had been paid into the bank on that day, and stated that the funds were to be used for funeral expenses only. The Chief constable of Rotherham John Bland next gave evidence that he had apprehended the prisoner on 10 August and when he asked Steer for the Society’s pass book, the prisoner told him that it had been sent to the headquarters in America. The magistrates took only a little time before finding the prisoner guilty, and committed him to take his trial at the next Sheffield Sessions

On Friday 13 September 1844, Michael Steer was brought before the Intermediate Sessions at the Town Hall in Sheffield. The prosecution was undertaken by Mr Wilkins and Steer was defended by Mr Pashley. Secretary, Mr Wightson told the court the nature of the offences and he produced the Society’s set of rules which he had printed out. Steer’s solicitor, Mr Pashley objected to the production of these rules on the grounds that they were the rules of the district office, and not those of the Grand United Order itself. The treasurer, William Carson stated that all the deposited money belonged to the district society only, and not the Grand Order. Therefore the money was only applicable to the payment of the funeral expenses of the Rotherham members and their wives. After much discussion on the subject, the chair of the magistrates decided that the district office must be treated as itself, an independent society.  Magistrate Mr Overend said that:

‘an Act of Parliament was designed to give privileges and facilities to societies enrolled. They were therefore a partnership, having taken certain money for certain purposes, and the prisoner had taken a portion of that money, and applied it to his own purposes’.

 Carson stipulated that the treasurer, the district master and the secretary were the only persons whose duty it was to pay in and receive any money out. On the 2 August the prisoner did not fill any of these offices, even though he fraudulently told the bank clerk that he was still the district master. When Carson was cross examined by Mr Pashley, the witness said that the district was in union with the United Order, but did not send in any accounts to it, except for the number of members and their names and addresses. There followed another legal discussion as to what was the heading in the pass book. Mr Pashley objected to this, but eventually it was stated to be ‘The Rotherham District of the Grand United Order of Oddfellows’. After much discussion on the rules of the Order, Carson admitted however that the prisoner had been the district master when the money had originally been deposited, but he ceased to hold office early in July. Thomas Wightson told the court that when the money was deposited in the Sheffield and Rotherham bank, Michael Steer was well aware that the money had been raised by contributions and was to be kept there solely for the benefit of the members of the society. He also knew that no member could draw the money out without the consent and the concurrence of the club and the passbook was kept in the club box.

Member John Handley gave evidence that he had accompanied Steer and the others to deposit the money in the bank, and they had been told to call in the following day for the pass book. It was arranged that the prisoner and the secretary should collect the pass book, and it would be deposited in a locked box to which only the two of them had the key. Bank clerk William Dyson once again gave evidence of the prisoner withdrawing money from the account on three different occasions. He produced the cheque which the prisoner had signed. Although the prisoner had told him he was the grand master, he had not added the words to his signature. Dyson said that he had entered the withdrawal into the pass book, as he was required to do and which the prisoner had then taken it away. Mr Bland gave his evidence and in particular repeated the remark that the prisoner had made about the pass book being in America, before being cross examined by the defence. He was asked what he thought the prisoner meant by this statement, and Mr Bland replied that he thought it meant that the book had been destroyed. Mr Pashley maintained that there had been no prior notice given, and therefore the prisoner was not obligated to produce the book. Therefore he suggested that his answer was merely a refusal.

The magistrate J W Bagshawe Esq.,  summed up in great detail on the complicated nature of the evidence. He stated that there was no doubt that the prisoner had committed the crime, nevertheless the Order itself was in part to blame. The magistrate said that they should have required the signatures of several persons when paying in or withdrawing funds for their own protection, and in order to prevent such a fraud happening again. The jury took little time to find the prisoner guilty and in passing sentence Mr Bagshawe told Steer:

‘You have been found guilty of obtaining money under false pretences, and it appears there are other indictments against you which the counsel for the prosecution has withheld, being satisfied that a conviction in one case will meet the ends of justice.  The offence is of a very serious character. You have taken the money of 300 person who have suffered because of your conduct. They were combined in a meritorious and praiseworthy object, that of assisting each other in case of funerals, and the injury you have inflicted on them is very great indeed. However it does not appear that you carried your false representations to the extent you might have done. In that case you would have been more guilty than you are; but you have still used a false pretence, of which you have been found guilty. Had you shown more craft in your representations to the bank, or had the society taken proper precautions to prevent such a fraud, the court would have passed a more severe sentence then it will do so under present circumstances. We should have dealt  with you more severely, but we think the Society in some degree culpable in allowing just one person to draw money from the bank. The sentence of the court is that you be imprisoned in the House of Correction for six months’.

Before Michael Steer left the court, the prosecution, Mr Wilkins asked the Treasurer Mr Carson to ensure that a full investigation be carried out by the Order, and that they improve their banking arrangements. He suggested that at the very least the Society should have the person withdrawing any money be accompanied by another official. He also blamed them for not informing the bank of the names of the only authorised persons who were allowed to draw out money on the Society’s behalf. The treasurer, Mr Carson, said that it was now it was a very public matter, and for the sake of public protection he would ensure that the matter would be fully investigated.

The burial club system only died out following the many other cases of abuse and mismanagement, like the Rotherham case of Michael Steer. Some of the abuses were carried out by parents themselves, who might enrol their sick child in several of these clubs. After the death, with little enquiry, the burial club officials would pay out, without the knowledge of the others clubs involved. It was also suggested that parents might neglect their sick child in the hope of gaining money from such clubs. There were even cases of murder uncovered when victims were enrolled in such clubs without their knowledge by fraudulent relatives. (see chapters on ‘The Wicked Wives of Wix’ in my book ‘Messengers of Death’) So many deaths resulted from these clubs, that by the end of the Victorian era the government had to enforce stricter legal control over such clubs until they eventually died out.

The competency of the Rotherham police force was seriously brought into question  during the years of 1838-9, due to the large numbers of robberies were taking place around Rotherham which legal authorities seemed powerless to stop. One spate which took place in Rawmarsh, seemed to indicate the presence of a local gang to the point that many people didn’t even bother to make a report. In fact the crime wave was eventually stopped, not by the police, but by the inhabitants of the village itself. One of the first  to be robbed was William Roberts, a farmer and shopkeeper of Rawmarsh on 3 December 1838. A few days previous, a customer Mr Samuel Barker of Mexborough had sent him a £10 note and requested him to buy some cheeses for him at the Rotherham market. When he was next in town he went to the shop of George Beaumont and purchased three thick cheeses and five thin ones and noted that all of them were marked with an ‘R’. Some days later the eight cheeses were delivered to his shop at Rawmarsh, ready for collection by Mr Samuel Barker. That same night the shop was broken into, and the cheeses were among other items that had been stolen. A servant of Mr Barker, Mary Flint noted the following morning that the robbers had entered the property through a cellar window. This had been pointed out to her by the neighbours opposite, who saw that the cellar window had been removed and the glass had been propped up against the wall. She found all the cheeses were missing, along with a ham and some bottles of port wine.

The next theft which was reported was from a farmer called Mr John Whitaker who stated that on 7 January 1839 he had gone to Rotherham market and due to the business he undertook there, went home with about £120 in his pocket. The money consisted of gold, silver and some bank notes. One was a £5 Leicester bank note, which had been given to him by a man called Proctor in part payment for some bullocks that he had sold. Mr Whitaker told the police authorities at the time he had been suspicious of the man as he did not know him, and had marked the bank note. He also had a bill of exchange for £18.11.9d, so when he returned back home about 4pm he carefully locked up the money, the marked bank note and the bill of exchange. When he got up the next morning, he found that the house had been broken into, and the money drawer broken open and its contents gone. Like the robbery at Mr Roberts, Mr Whitaker found that the robbers had entered through a part of the kitchen window, which again had been taken out of its frame. Also he found that the inner door from the kitchen into the sitting room, which had been locked, had also been broken open. Mr Whitaker searched the outside of the building and found the inner fastenings of the kitchen door laying on the ground, along with two hams which had been stolen from his pantry. His servant Mr William Crommack also complained that he had a blue smock which had been stolen. He had purchased the smock the previous Martinmas, which he had last worn on Saturday 6 January. Because it had been snowing, the garment had become very heavy and wet and so he left it drying all night before the fire in the kitchen at Mr Whitakers house. It was still there on the Monday, now hanging on the banisters at the house, but by Tuesday morning it had gone.

On Sunday 23 January  1839 yet another burglary took place at the premises of  butcher and innkeeper Mr Joseph Marcroft at Rawmarsh. On the Sunday night he had gone to bed about 10.30 pm having first seen that the house was secure. In his cellar he had a barrel with a brass tap in it, which held about four gallons of brandy. Another barrel contained four and a half gallons of rum and a third containing about 12 gallons of gin. Marcroft discovered the robbery the following morning about 9.30 am when like the other victims he went into the cellar and noted the glass from a window had been removed. There he found that the brandy and rum barrels had gone. He examined the gin barrel and he found that the greatest part of the gin had been drawn off and taken away. The following day he and his brother in law, Mr Broughton of the Star Inn, Rawmarsh and the constable of that place, Thomas Clarke went into the town of Rotherham to speak with Mr John Bland the chief constable. There they made a formal protest at the amount of burglaries, the lack of action by the police and complained about their inability to catch what seemed to be a gang operating in the area. Mr Bland promised better patrolling around Rawmarsh by his constables, but apart from that there was little he could do. Unsatisfied with the chief constables statement, Mr Marcroft, Mr Broughton and Thomas Clarke had no option but to return home. However shortly afterwards Marcroft gained some information which gave him the idea of how to take the law into his own hands and hopefully the return of his property.

He had long suspected that a local man called Dutton knew more about the robberies than he was letting on, and after plying him with drink, Dutton told Marcroft that if some of the outbuildings at a farm owned by John Liversedge could be searched, he might find something of great interest. The Liversedge family was well known to the Rotherham police and consisted of George aged 55, a shoemaker by trade, who lived in a cottage with his wife and family. Just three or four hundred yards away was another farmhouse which was occupied by his son, John Liversedge, who was aged about 28 years and had been married a few years previously to an aged widow of property. On the farm he kept a horse and three cows and supposedly earned a living as a farmer. His brother William aged 24 also lived in the farmhouse. After hearing the information which Dutton had told him, Marcroft was determined to watch the farm and to see if they could get enough evidence to force the Rotherham police to organise a search of the property. Consequently about two thirty in the morning of Wednesday 25 January 1839, Marcroft’s brother-in-law Broughton and another Rawmarsh man called Mr Thomas Chambers, went to John Liversedge’s farm, which was situated about a quarter of a mile from the village. The farm was silent as Thomas Chambers climbed over a hedge into the croft and approaching the farmhouse. The garden of the farmhouse was oblong in shape and inside it was a garden house, which was situated at a far corner and backed onto the North Midland railway line. Chambers listened for a moment to assure himself that everything was still and quiet, before trying the door of the garden house but it was locked. The men deliberated before Broughton told Chambers to break it open which he did.

Inside the two men were vindicated when they found a barrel of rum and some of the property which they knew had been stolen from Marcroft’s premises. As they stood before the barrel, Chambers indicated that there seemed to be something under the floor where he was stood. The floorboards were warped and they were easily pulled up. There the two men found more stolen loot including twenty four glass bottles of brandy and three stone bottle of spirits. Under the bottles, they found two canvas bags containing a large number of skeleton keys and other tools for housebreaking. At this point the men were very excited as they went to the house of Joseph Marcroft and woke him out of his bed. They told him to come to John Liversedge’s house and bring some men with him, and also to alert the local constable, Thomas Clarke. Chambers and Broughton then went back to the Liversedge farm to continue to keep watch. A short time later Joseph Marcroft and a man called Samuel Taylor joined them along with the constable Clarke. The men deliberated for a minute or two, before it was decided that Broughton and Clarke would go into Rotherham and return with the chief constable Mr Bland. They arrived back about 4am and Mr Bland immediately took charge. He went straight to the garden house where he saw the stolen items for himself. At this point Mr Bland left Samuel Taylor guarding the stolen goods, and went with Marcroft and Chambers to the farmhouse to arouse the family. John Liversedge heard the banging of the farmhouse door and got up to find the chief constable on his doorstep. Bland quickly handcuffed him to Mr Marcroft, in order that he and Chambers could make a further search of the house. As Bland was going upstairs, another man appeared at the top. He was Liversedge’s brother, William who immediately grabbed a poker and made towards an upstairs window as if to escape. He was seized and also handcuffed to his brother and Mr Marcroft.

In an upper chamber Bland opened a drawer and found a bag containing two five pound notes. When he asked John Liversedge if they were his, at first he denied it and then said that he had given ten sovereigns for them from a man he did not know. Bland and Chambers then searched the rest of the house where they found articles from various local robberies which had been committed some time previously. More stolen property was concealed under the floorboards of the farmhouse and other places. When they searched the outhouses and farm buildings as Dutton had indicated to Marcroft, they found many more stolen items. Much of the booty however was discovered in a chamber over the stables. There Bland found articles which he knew had been stolen in a succession of burglaries in the area. The chief constable asked John Liversedge about the key for the garden house, but he claimed that it was locked and that it had never been opened. Bland then informed him that they had broken in and a large amount of spirits had been found, which had been recently stolen from the premises of Mr Marcroft. When asked what he knew about this, John Liversedge told the chief constable that he knew nothing at all about it. Still searching the outhouses, Mr Bland found the door of the corn chamber was locked, so he returned back to the house and asked John for the keys. Resignedly now the prisoner indicated a nail with a key hanging from it and told Bland ‘it hangs there, take it’. The men searched the chamber and at the bottom of a tub they found the frock smock which had been reported stolen by William Crummock. When Bland showed it to the two male prisoners, John said it was his brother’s. William Liversedge agreed that it was his and claimed that he had bought it, but could not remember from whom or from where.

In the same chamber was a large porter cask and anxious to see what was inside, Bland bored a hole in it with a hand drill. When nothing came out he knocked off some of the hoops and the cask fell apart. Inside were some of the large cheeses that had also been reported as stolen by William Roberts. The two brothers stated that they had bought the cheeses at a shop in Rotherham and had put them into the cask for safe keeping. Also in the same chamber were several sacks of malt and some corn. Just then Sergeant Henry Womack arrived from Rotherham with other officers and told Bland that word of the finding of the stolen property was already circulating around the village of Rawmarsh. It was by now around 5am and rapidly getting lighter and as a result almost the whole population of Rawmarsh had gathered outside the farm to watch the capture of these most notorious thieves. All of the property and the two prisoners were placed into a large farm cart and Bland instructed Sergeant Womack to continue searching the premises, whilst he accompanied the prisoners into Rotherham. Bland also instructed police constable Thomas Wilson to watch the house of the father of the two prisoners, Mr George Liversedge who was thought to be an accomplice. Wilson was watching the house when he saw the old man come out and he just walked a short way down the path, before he met John’s wife. They had a short conversation before both the man and woman turned back to the house he had just left. Wilson went after them and when he asked George why he had turned back, he told him that he was going for the garden house key. PC Wilson and George Liversedge then went to the farmhouse occupied by his sons, but they had already been taken to Rotherham. Sgt.Womack then searched George Liversedge’s house and found half of a thin cheese marked with an ‘R’ which was later identified by William Roberts as one of those that had been stolen. When confronted with it, George said that his daughter had bought it at Sheffield. At this point Bland returned and Womack showed him the other property which had been uncovered under the floor, and George Liversedge too was arrested.

It was no exaggeration to say that the people of Rawmarsh and districts were absolutely delighted that this most notorious gang had finally been caught. A report in the Sheffield Independent dated 9 February 1839  joyfully stated that:

‘The detection of so formidable a gang of systematic burglars, the discovery of such an ingenious place for the wholesale deposit of stolen property and the recovery of so much property stolen from various places, have caused a great sensation in the neighbourhood. It is to be hoped that one of the most active and dangerous gangs of burglars which have infested the neighbourhood, and which has carried on its depredations for some years, has finally been broken up’.

The detection was made more timely, as paperwork found at the farm indicated that the family were on the point of emigrating to America the following spring. On Saturday 2 February 1839 the three Liversedge’s were brought into the Rotherham Town Hall charged with three counts of burglary. The first witness was Mr Whitaker who told the court that he had been shown some of the property that had been recovered from the stables of the farmhouse at Rawmarsh, and had positively identified the Leicester banknote. Mary Marriot, his housekeeper was also called to give evidence, and she confirmed the details of the state of the house after the burglary. She told the magistrates that the previous night she had herself locked all the doors and windows and made everything secure before going to bed.  Mr William Crommack the servant of Mr Whitaker told the court that he had been shown the frock smock by Mr Bland and he identified it as his own. As proof he had shown Mr Bland the holes which he had cut in the garment.

William Roberts also identified the cheeses that had been recovered as being the ones he bought for Samuel Barker from Rotherham. Sergeant Womack at that point showed the cheeses to the court, and the marking of ‘R’ could clearly be seen by the jury and magistrates. Sergeant Womack identified them as the same cheeses that had been recovered from the farmhouse of John Liversedge. The next to give evidence was Mr Marcroft who described for the court how he had gone to the Liversedge’s farm and finding his property among the other stolen items. He told the magistrates

‘I can swear the barrel produced by Mr Bland is the one which contained the four and a half gallons of rum, which I last saw in my cellar on the Sunday night about 7pm. I know it partly from having the number 1907 on it, which corresponds with the invoice of the rum sent with the barrel’.

After hearing all the evidence, the magistrates remanded George Liversedge whose case would be heard separately to the following Monday, and the two sons were sent to take their trial at the assizes. On Monday the father of the two men was again brought before the magistrates. Evidence was heard from shop man George Beaumont regarding the cheeses, and he identified those he had sold marked with the ‘R’. The magistrates ordered George Liversedge to take his trial with his sons on the charge of receiving stolen goods. Solicitor Mr Joseph Badger asked for bail, but it was refused.

On Saturday March 9 1839 George, John and William Liversedge appeared at the Yorkshire Assizes before Thomas Starkie Esq., QC. The were tried firstly on ‘having feloniously and burglariously entered the dwelling house of  Mr John Whittaker on 7 January 1839 and stealing £120’. After hearing all the evidence the jury found John and William Liversedge guilty, but their father George Liversedge was found not guilty of receiving the stolen cheeses and discharged. The sentence on the two sons was deferred to the following day, when they were informed that they would be transported for life. The Secretary of State ordered that on Monday 6 May 1839 that John and William Liversedge, with a group of other prisoners were sent to the Justicia hulk at Woolwich to await a ship to transport them across the seas. Life in these hulks were grim, as they were usually old vessels and no longer sea worthy. Seen as worse than prisons, the condition in these hulks were dirty and unsanitary. Outbreaks of disease such as typhoid and cholera were common, and consequently there was a high death rate. We know however that John and William survived these conditions, as on 31 July the two men were among 336 other convicts who went aboard the Barossa to serve out the rest of their life in New South Wales. No doubt during this sentence they had plenty of time to reflect on their nefarious activities in and around Rawmarsh and the country they had left behind.