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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.