When local press got wind of the visit of the King and Queen to the Yorkshire region, the palace was anxious to impress on them that the Royal couple would not be attending glittering ceremonies or performing state functions. They would instead visit industrial works in order to gain first hand knowledge of the conditions under which their people are employed and live. To this end Earl Fitzwilliam, who had been instrumental in arranging the visit, told local reporters:

‘I am instructed by His Majesty that he wishes informality to be the watchword and it is in no sense a State visit. The King and Queen have expressed a desire to see men and women in working conditions and we have impressed upon the owners of works and establishments honoured by a Royal visit, that a great deal of whitewash is not what is required’.

Although there had been heavy rainfall for many days beforehand, thankfully the sun was shining as the Royal train pulled into Doncaster station on Monday 8 July 1912. The Royal party had that day travelled up from Kings Cross and were expected to arrive at Doncaster at 3.55 pm, however to the pleasure of the waiting crowd, they arrived a few minutes early. It was reported that:‘Her Majesty was wearing a pale green, shantung braided coat and skirt with a black trimmed hat with roses around the brim. King George was wearing grey suit a brown felt hat, brown boots and carried light grey gloves’. On the platform they were met by local dignitaries, including Earl Fitzwilliam with whom they shook hands.

The Royal couple and the Earl then seated themselves in a big powerful Daimler car, which was a closed car with both sides made of glass, allowing their Majesties to be clearly seen by the local populace. The car with the Royal Standard on the front, stood out amongst the other official cars, as it made its way from Doncaster to Conisbrough Castle. The Royal Standard flag had also been erected above the battlements, and it was said that this was the first time that a King and Queen had visited the castle since the visit of King John in March 1201. The Royal couple left the car at the entrance to the outer ward, before walking among lines of school children and boy scouts who took their place on both sides of the narrow entrance to the castle. The Queen took her place in the marquee, which had been erected on the grass of the inner ward, where Lord and Lady Yarborough would serve tea to the Royal couple. King George accompanied by Earl Fitzwilliam and other men of the party, ascended the stone steps to the wooden door leading into the keep which was 20 feet above the ground. Then the party disappeared from view before climbing up the dark and narrow steps to the top. The King then appeared and walked around the top of the castle, delighting the seven thousand colliers waiting below by raising his hat to loud cheers. King George and his party then descended and joined the Queen as tea was served in the marquee. The outer wards were filled by miners and their wives, who were allowed to watch the unusual spectacle of the King and Queen having their tea. The Royal pair appeared to enjoy the idea so much that they lingered longer than was expected.

Finally, the honoured guests returned back to the car for the drive to the Wentworth Woodhouse estate, once again accompanied by the Earl. As they passed through Hooton Roberts, the main thoroughfare was ablaze with the colours of flags, both large and small which the village had erected in honour of the Royal visit. The car moved at walking pace through the village allowing all the assembled crowds to clearly see the King and Queen, as a crimson avalanche of roses were thrown at the car. At Piccadilly, it was noted that although the assembled men and women cheered loudly, many workmen had not time to change out of the work clothes before the arrival of the Royal car. Nevertheless their Majesties waved and smiled to the assembled miners and their wives. There were more dirty faces as working men and their families assembled at Picadilly, where the reception was just as warm. As the car arrived at the top of the hill beyond Kilnhurst, the Royal couple saw schoolchildren, every one of them, wearing bonnets or ribbons decorated in red, white and blue, and many of them holding and waving miniature Union Jacks. At Hoober the car slowed to allow their Majesties to see the Stand and the Fitzwilliam Mausoleum towering above the trees. The road to the great park at Wentworth was lined with enthusiastic spectators as the car past slowly through, 20 minutes later than expected at 5.50pm. As the car entered through the north gate there was a sound of a bugle, and as the car approached the great house, there on the lawn the King and Queen saw over 4,000 servicemen and ex servicemen of the West Riding National Reserve. The Royal couple alighted from the car and the Queen, accompanied by other ladies, took her place on the balcony overlooking the parade of men below. The King inspected them as they marched past to the strains of ‘Where are the boys of the Old Brigade’ as the Sheffield Daily Telegraph reported proudly ‘they were there’. Afterwards King George, showing no urgency to leave, chatted with the men to their great delight.

At last it was time for the Royal couple to go inside and Colonel Hughes shouted for ‘three cheers for the King and Queen’. The men responded with much enthusiasm and heartiness as their Majesties finally retired inside the great house. It was reported that they had been given apartments in the old Strafford portion of the house which overlooked the beautiful lawns. The rooms contained some rare and priceless articles which had been gifts from King Charles I to the Earl of Strafford. One of the prized articles included a picture of Thomas Wentworth dictating to his secretary on the night before his execution. A private house party was then given where it was reported that an orchestral band played through dinner. It was fairly late in the evening as the crowds finally left the park, all hoping no doubt to catch a glimpse of the Royal couple once more. However in the early hours a gloom was cast over the success of the Royal visit by the terrible news that morning that a disaster had taken place at Cadeby Main Colliery, only a few miles away from Conisbrough Castle. In fact it had happened just a few hours after the Royal couple had left. It seems that there had been an explosion of accumulated gas in the southern part of the mine at about 1-2am. Thankfully the pit had less men working in it than normal due to the royal visit, but it was probably that some of the men with dirty faces who had cheered the royal couple, would have come from or been working in the Cadeby pit at the time of the catastrophe. The King and Queen were told that two men who had been working 400-500 yards away, first felt the heat from the blast and decided in consultation with the pit deputy, that an explosion had taken place. They tried to get to the place where many of their colleagues were working, but foul air meant that they had to return to the pit bottom. A rescue crew arrived, but shortly after their descent another explosion was heard. Yet a second rescue crew was sent down, which sadly included a Mr Basil Pickering the manager of the Wath Main Colliery. There he found the dead body of his father, W H Pickering the Chief Government Inspector of Mines for Yorkshire, who had gone in the first rescue team. The party had found the remains of their ill fated rescue colleagues who had been cut off by a fall of roof, shutting out the vital air that they needed, and killing all but three or four of the first rescue party. During the early hours of the following morning hundreds of local people, anxious relative and employees alike gathered at the pit head to see a continuous procession of ambulance men bringing up the bodies and placing them in the pay room. Long tables had been quickly erected and soon held the corpses, wrapped in white sheets. It was later estimated that there was 91 victims, of which thirty four were brave men who had gone to the rescue of their stricken colleagues.

Coming Next Week

More about the  Cadeby disaster and an unscheduled Royal visit

The Royal visit to Rotherham Hospital and Clifton Park

Their unexpected visit to a cottage on the Park, Woodlands

The Kings descent into Elsecar Colliery

The single protester of Furlong Road, Bolton-upon-Dearne

On the evening of Sunday 12 December 1841 Maria Parker, a servant girl, was sent by her mistress Mrs Didsbury of Canklow Lane to go to the cellar and bring up some food for supper. Entering the cellar the girl the girl picked up the required items and being security conscious, at the same time noted that the grate was fastened and the door to the outside was secure. However the following morning upon entering the cellar between six and seven o’clock she found that it had been broken into. Among the stolen items was a quantity of cheese, bread and butter, a small ham and some mutton and beef. Maria also saw that the door which led into the wine cellar had been broken open and eight bottles of wine were missing. Another empty bottle of wine, which presumably had been drunk by the thieves, lay broken upon the cellar floor. Shocked the girl ran back upstairs and reported the theft to her mistress. Mrs Didsbury immediately proceeded to the cellar and confirmed that the items had indeed been stolen. The local police were informed and constable John Bland was dispatched immediately to the house.

Starting his search in the garden, the constable immediately noted that the thieves had got into the property by scaling the back wall. He also found several footprints in the soil of the flower border nearest to the grate which led into the cellar. One of the prints was larger than the other, but both of them were very distinct and perfect. On the larger impression, the sole of the right shoe showed three rows of small nails, each row coming within an inch of the other. There was also a single row near to the heel of the shoe which appeared to be very worn down. The other shoe had similar marking as well as a distinct crack across the sole. The constable noted that both impressions of the shoes were very clear in the soil and he noted the same prints near to the garden gate. He made sketches of the two separate soles before examining the disturbed contents of the cellar. Returning back to the police office Bland made several enquiries and found a night watchman Joshua Hemsill who had an interesting incident to report. He stated that about 1.45 am on the Monday morning he was making his rounds along Westgate when he noticed a light was still on at the house of Benjamin Turton. He lived at the house with his wife and his daughter Harriet and was a man well known to the police. Out of curiosity the constable listened at the door for a while. He could hear voices and someone walking about in the kitchen before continuing with his designated round. A little after 2 am he went past the house again and once more saw a light  was still on in the kitchen.

Another witness was a man called James Taylor a shoemaker of Rotherham, who stated that on Monday afternoon about 1 pm he was walking from the cattle market into Wellgate when he saw Harriet  Turton drunk on Quarry Hill. Taylor told Bland that the girl was  so drunk that she fell down into the channel at the side of the road. The witness helped her back on her feet, but the girl simply stated ‘oh dear what will become of me’. She then tried to walk away, but fell once more against a wall and hurt her head. Another witness was Frances Maria Lidster the wife of Samuel Lidster, who told Bland that she too had seen Harriet very inebriated that same afternoon. She said ‘she was very drunk and was taken away by a little girl’. On Monday evening of 13 December constable Bland and constable Womack went to the house of Benjamin Turton, but found only Harriet and her mother were present. Bland told the girl that her and her father were under suspicion for the robbery at Mrs Didsbury’s house and demanded to search the house. Whilst searching, Womack asked Harriet for her father shoes and she told him that she was wearing them at the time, as her own shoes needed mending. She took them off and handed them to Bland who carefully examined them. He found they corresponded exactly with the larger set of prints in the soil at Mrs Didsbury’s garden. They also examined the girls shoes, which were waiting to be repaired, and noted that it had a large crack running across the sole. They then returned to Mrs Didsbury’s garden and carefully compared the prisoners shoes with the footprints in the garden. The two officers found that the prints matched in every degree.

On Thursday 16 December 1841 Benjamin and Harriet Turton of Westgate were brought into the Court House at Rotherham charged with suspicion of committing the burglary. At that point they were simply remanded in order for the police to continue with their enquiries and to give them time to search for the stolen property. When the prisoners were brought back into court on Monday 20 December they had a solicitor, Mr J Badger who was defending them. The servant Maria Parker was the first witness and she told the magistrates that after she had discover that some items were missing, she had gone into the garden to examine the grating from the outside. There she had found some of the cheese, ham and a piece of beef which had been left by a wall, presumably by the two prisoners, who were undoubtedly tipsy following their consumption of the stolen bottle of wine. Constable Bland described to the magistrates how, accompanied by constables Womack and Dearnelly, they had gone  to Mrs Didsbury’s garden and confirmed that the prisoners shoes matched the footprints in the garden. Constable Dearnelly confirmed his colleagues evidence. Another witness was Edward Calton a labourer, who told the magistrates that he was a gardener and had worked in the garden for Mrs Didsbury from the 6th to the 11th December of that year. On the Saturday he had finished work at 4pm having previously raked off the soil in the flower bed. He swore that he had not left any footprints in the soil and had left it tidy and clear.  The magistrates conferred briefly before stating that the evidence of the shoe prints, as well as the girl being seen drunk in the streets following the night of the robbery, was enough evidence to find both father and daughter guilty. He sentenced them to take their trial at the Sheffield Quarter Sessions where they appeared on Friday 28 February 1842. After hearing all the evidence Benjamin and Harriet Turton were both found guilty and given six months imprisonment.

Apprenticeship schemes were used extensively during the 19th century in order, it was hoped, to provide children with a stable employment. It was thought that these schemes would make them useful members of society and not be a drain on parish resources when they became adults. As such, apprenticeships were exceptionally popular for workhouse children. However they were not always viewed as such by the young people themselves. Indentures lasted seven years and young people could be brought before the magistrates for any infraction of the rules. When one young Rotherham lad found himself in front of the Rotherham magistrates resulting in his being sent to prison for six weeks, it took two years for him to get his revenge on his master.

On Wednesday 24 July 1844, blacksmith William Roberts charged his apprentice, Joshua Crawshaw with being a disorderly apprentice and he was committed by the Rotherham magistrates to gaol for six weeks. We have no evidence as to how old Joshua was, but two years later on Monday 7 September 1846, Joshua charged his master with not giving him sufficient food and decent lodgings which was contrary to his indentures. William Roberts was a married man with two children aged ten and eleven years of age. Joshua told the court that his master wife, Mrs Roberts had for several months been declared insane and as a consequence was confined to her bedroom. He stated that she had only been out of her room once in all that time. In her absence the care of the house was left to the eldest child, a girl aged 11 years. Not surprisingly because of her very young age, the house was in a most filthy state and Joshua complained that he had been obliged to sleep in bedclothes which had not been changed since the previous Christmas. The apprentice also complained that he did not have a clean shirt for a fortnight at a time and when he finally complained, his master had given him an old one of his own with one sleeve torn off. He told the magistrates that the meat for the family was bought by the little girl, and after it was cooked was kept in a drawer in the masters bedroom in which he slept with his two children. Inevitably when the meat was served up, it smelt so bad that the apprentice could not eat it, and the bread it was served with, was mouldy and disgusting. Joshua told the court that the house was never cleaned except very occasionally, when some of the neighbours came in to clean it out of pity for his master and his wife. He said that a short while previously, there had been fever in the house and one of the masters children, a little boy had died. Joshua had also been taken poorly at the same time, and had been bed ridden and unable to work for fifteen weeks. Since that time the house had never been cleaned once. The house was not only a nuisance to those who were forced to live in it, but to the neighbours also.

At this point Mr Roberts was asked if he had anything to say following his apprentices statement and he told the magistrates that Joshua spoke nothing but lies. He claimed that his daughter, although small, could clean the house ‘uncommonly well’. He also claimed that he had only kept the meat in the bedroom drawer to preserve it from the rats that infested the house. He asked the magistrates to cancel the indentures in order for him to rid himself of  his disorderly apprentice. One of the neighbours, a woman called Ann Stainrod described as ‘a respectable, elderly looking woman’ then gave her evidence. She told the court that she lived near Mr Roberts and said that the state of the house and Mrs Roberts was painful to see. She confirmed Joshua’s evidence that the house was completely filthy throughout and had not been cleaned for months. She said:

‘it was grievous to see the state of both the defendants, the children’s and the apprentice’s beds. No person could tell what the pillow slips or sheets were made of, they were so dirty. As for Mrs Roberts, she had been treated worse than a pig, as a pig had cleaner bedding, which she had not, and she was not washed more than once a month’.

The witness said that she had seen the meat which the family had to eat and it was generally bad, in consequence of the filthy state of the house. Mr Roberts himself had told her that they were forced to put more of their meat and bread in the pig trough than they had to eat themselves. Mrs Stainrod said that it was shocking and pitiable to see the state of Mrs Roberts  and that every time anyone came to the house, she would call out to them and beg them to bring her food. No person could pass the window of her room, which was over the blacksmith’s shop, but she would call out to them to help her. Every square of glass in the window where she was confined had been broken and the room was icy cold. At this point the magistrate, Mr Walker asked William Roberts if his wife ‘was the same female who was always at the window of the shop at Kimberworth, who had her hair cut very short?’ When Mr Roberts confirmed that she was, Mr Walker stated that he had frequently seen the poor woman at the window when passing through the village. Another of the magistrates, Mr Bosville told Mr Roberts that:

‘if through the will of the Almighty your wife was afflicted in that manner, that it was your duty not only to have some person to take care for her and the house, but to  have her removed as early as possible to some place where she would be under proper medical supervision and treatment.

At this point the Hon. and Rev. William Howard who was a magistrate as well as being on the board of the Guardians of the Poor, claimed that the matter had been looked into by the workhouse, but at that time there was just no place for her to go. Coroner Mr Badger, who was also in the court room, warned him that the Rotherham Board of Guardians would be liable if anything happened to the poor woman, and if she died and he had to hold an inquest ‘he would remember their laxity’. Mr Howard said that the Guardians had only recently been informed of the case, and had taken steps for the woman’s removal, but they could not find a vacancy in any of the Yorkshire Asylums.

Another neighbour called Sarah Bates confirmed the last witnesses statement and said that she had often gone to the house and was appalled at the condition in which the inhabitants lived. She concurred that the boy Joshua had been forced to wear dirty shirts for long periods and the bed linen was as black as soot from the chimney and unfit for any human beings to sleep in. She too had seen the meat for the family, which had been quite green on at least three different occasions, and the bread was so bad that it ‘drew out like cobwebs’.  Mr Whitfield on behalf of Joshua told the court that he had other witnesses who he could call if necessary, but he submitted that the witnesses evidence alone proved that Mr Roberts ‘did not supply his apprentice with sufficient good, wholesome food and lodgings’.  Mr Roberts only defence was to deny the witnesses statements and he claimed that the charge had been made out of malice by his apprentice for taking him to court two years previously. After consulting with the other magistrates on the bench, Mr Walker told Mr Roberts that after listening to all the evidence it was clear that there was serious negligence on his part. He would not cancel the indentures without Mr Roberts giving Joshua another trial, but he warned:

‘you must provide him with clean and proper lodgings in the village, where he could be comfortably accommodated and where he was given both clean bed and body linen to wear. He must also have sound food provided. We do not say  that it was impossible for the food to be unwholesome, as this might happen from meat being kept uncooked in hot weather, or the bread being made from bad corn. From the peculiar circumstances of your wife’s illness, we will give you another chance, but you must commence the amendment that very night or the boys indentures will be cancelled’. 

Mr Walker concluded that unless his wife was properly taken care of, Roberts would render himself liable to very serious consequences, before ordering the defendant to pay the court costs of 7s 6d.

There is no evidence as to whether Mrs Roberts  was taken to be cared for in an asylum, or whether Joshua successfully finished his apprenticeship to the blacksmith. Certainly the description of life at the shop in Kimberworth is terrible for us to read. However two years later in 1848 the town council was forced to appoint the Rotherham and Kimberworth Board of Health. From that point, the board members would regularly have to report to the council all such unsanitary living conditions experienced by the people of the town, and slowly matters began to improve.

In January of 1854 the Station Inn (also known as the Railway Inn) on Westgate did a roaring trade. The inn was quite a substantial property and consisted of three excellent cellars, two sitting rooms, a tap room, a bar, a kitchen and a larder on the ground floor. On the upper floor was a splendid billiard room. private sitting room, a store room and eight convenient lodging rooms. A dwelling house adjoined the property along Westgate was used as offices by architect Mr John Axelby. The Station Inn was run by a man called James Allen, who quickly established good local trade, combined with the proximity of the railway station across the road, generally ensured good business. Occasionally Allen was so busy at the inn that his sister, Margaret Waugh would come and help. On a market day it was usually so crowded, that for the past year Allen had also employed a married woman Mrs Jane Knowlson as a cook to help out in the kitchen. The other staff he regularly employed consisted of two women cleaners named Margaret Dyson and Mary Tansey. At some point around the previous Christmas, Allen began to suspect that he had a thief on the premises. He called in Sergeant Timms who made a note that bottles of sherry, brandy and other spirits had disappeared. Making an inventory, Allen discovered that there were also other items missing apart from alcohol, which including lump sugar, a bottle of capers, knives, forks, two silk handkerchiefs, table cloths, curtains and bedding. The landlord also found that a pair of boots which he had last worn on Christmas Day, had also disappeared. Sergeant Timms asked him about his relations with his staff, which he told them was very good, although he admitted there had been some disputes between Jane Knowlson and the two part time cleaning women.

When items continued to go missing, Mr Allen decided that it was time to take action. Consequently at 5 am on the morning of 22 January 1854, Sergeant Timms and two constables as well as Allen’s sister, Margaret Waugh called at the lodgings on Westgate where Mary Tansey resided with her husband. The sergeant told her that he had come to apprehend her on suspicion of stealing certain articles from Mr Allen’s house. Tansey denied all knowledge, but nevertheless the rooms were searched and in her box he found two bottles of brandy, two bottles of gin and three bottles of port wine. The woman claimed that she had been given the wine and gin on New Years Eve by Jane Knowlson. She claimed that the other cleaner, Margaret Dyson had also given her the brandy during a recent, severe snow storm. Tansey was arrested and placed in a cell. Later that same morning at noon Sergeant Timms still accompanied by the landlord’s sister Margaret Waugh, went to Margaret Dyson’s lodgings which she shared with her husband on Wellgate, Rotherham. The couple were still in bed as the Sergeant told the woman that she was suspected of stealing some port wine, spirits and other items from Mr Allen’s house, and once again he searched the rooms. At this point Margaret Dyson also claimed that she had been given some port wine and brandy by the cook, Jane Knowlson on New Years Day, along with two pitchers of wine. Sergeant Timms read out to her the list of stolen articles, and Dyson admitted that he would find some of them in her husband’s box. Searching it, the sergeant also found more bottles of cherry brandy, port wine and gin and the two silk handkerchiefs. Margaret Dyson was also arrested and taken to the Rotherham police station and placed in a cell. Several of the items which had been recovered were shown to Mr Allen who identified them as his own property. When the landlord heard the women’s statements, he told them that he had never authorised Jane Knowlson to give either women any alcohol. His sister Margaret Waugh was also shown some of the recovered items and she identified some bolster pillow slips, which she had made herself, three glass cloths and a window blind which she confirmed was her brothers property.

Whilst the two woman were in the calls, later that morning the sergeant returned with landlord, Mr Allen to the rooms belonging to the Dyson’s at the lodging house on Westgate to search more thoroughly. His search was rewarded. There he found some boots under the bed which Mr Allen identified as those he had last seen on Christmas Day. Richard Dyson told him that the boots were not stolen, and claimed that he had bought the boots off a tramp. A quantity of knives and forks were also found, which  Dyson claimed he had bought at Barnsley. Sergeant Timms and Mr Allen then went to Mary Tansey’s lodgings and found a valuable snuff box, hidden between the mattress and the bed, some curtains and two pictures, all of which were identified as being stolen from the Station Inn. More wine was also found, which again Mr Tansey said had been given to his wife by Jane Knowlson. The two cleaning women Tansey and Dyson were charged with stealing, and their respective husbands were charged with receiving the stolen items. To her horror Jane Knowlson was also charged with stealing the items, which she denied.

All five prisoners were brought before the Earl of Effingham at the Rotherham Petty Session on Monday 23 January 1854. They were all found guilty and sent to take their trial, but because of her good character, only Jane Knowlson was allowed bail. By the time the prisoners were due to take their trial at the Sheffield Intermediate Sessions on Tuesday 28 February, only the two Tansey’s and the Dyson’s appeared before the bench. In the interim Jane Knowlson had been cleared of all guilt, following positive statements from solicitor Mr Joseph Badger, and Mr Bland the Superintendent of Rotherham police. Now she acted as the principal prosecution witness against the other four prisoners. Thomas Tansey was found to have no direct evidence against him and was discharged, although his wife Mary received six months imprisonment. Margaret Dyson and her husband Richard were tried together, she charged with stealing and her husband charged with receiving the articles knowing them to be stolen. The defence solicitor Mr Johnstone made an urgent appeal to the jury in his summing up on behalf of Mr Dyson. He claimed that the property had been stolen by his wife, and conveyed to the room he shared with her, without his knowledge or consent. Nevertheless Margaret Dyson was given six months, whilst he was given a four month sentence for receiving. Jane Knowlson was thankfully dismissed of all charges.

Sadly little is known of the fate of Jane Knowlson or the reason why two other workers at the inn took against her to such an extent that she was accused of crimes she did not commit. Petty jealousy’s are common in such a busy workspace, but thankfully her own good character exonerated her from all guilt.

On the night of Tuesday 22 May 1888 a man called Edward Larkin aged 22 and his mother aged 55 were drinking in the Phoenix Hotel on Masbrough Street. By 8.25pm the pub was crowded and a man called Joseph Hollings caused an uproar that night by noisily dancing up and down in a manner that was described ‘as if he was not right in the head’. Diplomatically Sarah Larkin asked him to be quiet and invited him to come and have a glass of beer with her. He did not answer her but without a reason struck out at her and she fell against a table. A man called John Carrol went up to remonstrate with him, and the row caused the landlord Mr Davy to turf the noisy party outside. As a result, Edward, his mother, Carrol and Hollings were all ejected. Edward Larkin and Hollings then started to fight, but Mrs Larkin intervened once again and pleaded with them both ‘do be quiet, lets be jolly and have no fighting’. It was later claimed that someone pushed at her at that point and she fell in the middle of Masbrough road, the back of her head coming in contact with some stones. John Carrol maintained that it was Hollings that had pushed her, but he denied it. The police were called and when the chief constable, Mr Pollard attended and tried to lift the woman from the road, he heard her say to her son ‘Oh Edward, thou hast done me’. Sarah was taken home and despite being attended to by Dr Collinson, she died at 10.30 am three days later.

On Saturday 26 May 1888 the local newspaper the Sheffield and Rotherham Independent described:

‘yesterday afternoon the higher part of Masbrough Street, Rotherham was in a state of considerable excitement, owing to the death of a woman named Sarah Larkin, who lived with her husband at 155 Masbrough Street. At the moment the police are very reticent on the subject’.

The reporter, who in his haste to put the case before the reading public, made several mistakes in his copy, quoted the man Hollings as being named Rollins and stating that Sarah had intervened to prevent him from striking her son. He also stated that her death was as a result of  concussion of the brain, despite the fact that a post mortem hadn’t been undertaken at that point. The reporter even wrongly claimed that the party had all been drinking at the Travellers Rest at the coroner of Masbrough Street and Main Road, Rotherham and not the Phoenix Hotel. The unreliable report then concluded:

‘Whether the woman fell to the floor owing to her having been drinking and thus received her injuries. Or whether they were caused by the blow or push she received from Rollins, or whether her death is attributable to another cause, are matters which will undoubtedly be set at rest when the police authorities have completed their enquiries. But the belief prevailed last evening that the injury had been caused by her falling, when struck or pushed by Rollins at the Travellers Rest’.

 The case was brought before the coroner, Mr D Wightman on Monday 28 May 1888 at the Queens Hotel, Masbrough Street. The first to give evidence was the police surgeon Dr Cobban who told the inquest that he had completed a post mortem the previous day, and found a contused wound at the back of the deceased woman’s scalp. There were no other outward sign of violence on the rest of her body, but he found the membranes of the skull very congested. He concluded that the cause of death was compression of the brain caused by violence to the back of the head. The surgeon clearly stated that the injury was caused when she fell to the floor and could not have been caused by a man’s fist. He admitted that he had not examined the woman’s internal organs, but said that he was aware that the deceased had been in the habit of drinking heavily. Dr Cobban was questioned as to whether the wound could have been caused by a blow from a stick or a poker for example, but he did not think that would have been possible. The surgeon concluded that in his opinion the wound was caused by her falling onto a hard kerbstone or something similar. The woman’s husband Hugh Larkin was the next to give evidence and told the court that he had lived with his wife on Masbrough Street for about 35 years. He said that she was not a regular drinker, but a glass or two of beer would be too much for her. However he added that she had always been a very healthy woman. On the night in question she had been brought home insensible by two people, a man called Kirby and a woman, and that she had died on Friday 25 May. He had sent for Dr Collinson, but the poor woman never recovered sufficiently to be able to tell him how her injuries had been caused. Mr Larkin also said he was the father of Edward and said that he was not aware of any argument between his wife and his son. A witness called Herbert Deakin was passing the Phoenix about 8.30 pm, when he saw Edward Larkin and two men come out to fight. He clearly saw the woman come out after them and she tried to separate the two men. He said that he saw Edward Larkin hit his mother on the mouth, and saw her fall to the ground striking the back of her head on the road. Deakin said that he heard the woman say ‘Oh Edward thou hast done me’ before becoming insensible. He claimed that the son had hit his mother on purpose and that all the people involved had been drinking and were intoxicated.

Joseph Hollings gave evidence of the men being turned out to fight and blamed the reason for the argument on John Carrol from Sheffield who had caused the trouble by his dancing about in the Phoenix that night. He also said that in his opinion Edward Larking and his mother were sober and that the deceased woman had simply tried to prevent the men from fighting. He said that Hollings had pushed her and she had fallen into the road. Carrol in his evidence claimed that Edward Larkin did not strike his mother. Another witness was a young single woman called Fanny Young who claimed that it was Hollings who had hit the woman. The chief constable cross questioned her which proved that she was keeping company with Edward Larkin for the past two years and was expected to marry him. So he told the jury that her evidence had to be discounted. The coroner stated that the evidence from all the witnesses was so contradictory that he could hardly expect the jury to come to a decision. The chief constable said that he had not the slightest doubt as to who had done it, the only difficulty was trying to prove it. He told the coroner that the Larkin’s had impeded the police investigation by refused to say where the witness Carroll lived, and the Sheffield police had eventually traced him. The girl Young also refused to give the name of anyone else in the Phoenix that night. A servant girl named Maria Shaw described the argument which had broken out and described the men being ejected by the landlord, Mr Davy. She said that the deceased woman was sober and they were not noisy until Carrol interfered with Hollings. Another witness was Eliza Bennett the wife of a mill roller of Sarah Street, Holmes, was passing the public house on that night. She said that she did not know the family or anyone in the party before they started fighting. Mrs Bennett claimed that she did not see Larkin strike at his mother, but thought he might have pushed her. She also said that she saw Larkin picked his mother up off the ground and drop her again on the floor. She too heard his mother say ‘Oh  Edward you have done me’. Her husband was the next to give his evidence and he corroborated his wife’s statement and he thought that the deceased woman was intoxicated.

The coroner in summing up stated that the weight of evidence was against Larkin, even to his mother’s last words. He said that the witness Mrs Bennett had claimed that there was more than one fall, but whether the first fall killed her, or the second, or a combination of them both was immaterial. However the witness statements were so contradictory, that he could not send the man for trial as he could not see how he could be convicted of manslaughter. He concluded:

‘nothing would give me greater pleasure than to send Edward Larkin for trial. Yet it is my duty, as a coroner  to tell you the jury, that I do not see any prospect whatever of a conviction on the evidence’.

Even the members of the jury were unclear as to who the attacker was. One stated that he thought that Hollings was just as guilty as Larkin, and felt that his name should also be added to the charge. But the foreman of the jury said that he did not think on the evidence that they had, they could come to any other conclusion other than that the death had been accidental. He added that it was just possible that the deceased herself was as much to blame as the two men, if indeed she was intoxicated. After much discussion the jury came to the conclusion that the deceased had died ‘from concussion of the brain caused by a fall, during a quarrel with Edward Larkin her son. But as to how she fell, there was not sufficient evidence to show’. Nevertheless when the enquiry came to an end Edward Larkin was arrested on the charge of ‘causing the death of Sarah Larkin by striking her with his fist’.

On Tuesday 29 May 1888 Edward Larkin was brought before the Rotherham magistrates, but was simply remanded. The chief constable Mr Pollard said that he hoped the magistrates would not grant bail to the prisoner, as he had made threats against the witnesses. However the magistrates agreed that he could be bailed with substantial sureties. Larkin’s sister stated that she could produce two respectable witnesses who would provide two sureties of £20 each and bail was granted. When the adjourned enquiry was resumed on Thursday 4 June, Inspector Barham said the coroners jury had returned what was in effect an open verdict and up to the present the police had not been able to get any further evidence against the prisoner. The Mayor addressing the prisoner told him that as there was no clear evidence  against him, he would be remanded at large, and be liable to be brought up if any further evidence should be obtained to throw light upon the case. Larkin was then bound over in the sum of £25 on his own recognisance’s to appear when and if called upon. Alderman Neill told him he had better look upon this as a warning, because he had a very narrow escape’. Sadly there is no conclusion to this case and so we are left with the question, was it matricide or manslaughter?

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.