It had long been decided that the regime in the debtors prison in Sheffield should be purposely harsh in order to determine that as few people as possible would enter through its doors. Therefore the food needed to be a basic prison diet. They also hoped that the prisoners own relatives would supplement their needs. Those prisoners who had no relatives, were funded by the workhouse guardians of the particular towns where the prisoners had been born. The governor of the Sheffield Debtors Gaol at this period was Mr William Kirk and he made it very plain that the food allowance was not sufficient, at a meeting held in August 1837.

The meeting which consisted of the workhouse overseers and the Sheffield magistrates therefore decided what the food allowance for the prisoners should be. After some debate, they agreed that each prisoner should have a pound and a half of bread each day and 6d a week in money. However Mr Kirk argued that this was 6d less than the prisoners had received previously. It was also agreed that the bread would be supplied either from the workhouse itself or from bakers in the town who had been contracted to supply it. However when the death of 45 year old prisoner, Charles Musgrave was brought to the attention of the local authorities, it was decided that something must be done.

He had died in the early hours of Friday 8 September 1837, so the Coroner Mr Badger arranged an inquest to be held at the prison later that same day. Mr William Kirk was summoned to the inquest and he told the jury that the prisoner Musgrave, who had originally come to Sheffield from Barnsley, had five debt warrants against him when he entered the prison in April of that year. The governor explained the food allowance system and told the magistrates of his concerns that it was insufficient. He gave his opinion that either the bread or money allowance should be increased.

At this point one of the jury, Mr Sanderson asked the coroner if he could speak. He told the inquest that he was a baker who lived adjoining the gaol in Scotland Street and stated that he agreed with the witnesses findings. The baker admitted that he had provided bread to the gaol for nearly three years and during that time had heard several complaints. He said the prisoners were not complaining about the quality of the bread, so much as the quantity of it that they were given. The next witness was the widow of the deceased man, Mrs Ann Musgrave. She told the coroner that when her husband had been sent to the Debtors Gaol, she had been left with seven children to care for.

Since that time she said that she had been allowed just 2s a week and two 6lb loaves of bread from the Barnsley Workhouse to feed herself and the children. Therefore she was unable to supplement any money or food for her husband. Mrs Musgrave declared that her two eldest daughters had worked at home for several weeks previously. They were employed in weaving hair, and for the last three weeks had brought in 7s each for this work. The witness complained that while Charles had lived with his family, he worked hard to provide for them all. One of the jury asked her if her husband had been a drunkard, which she hotly denied.

She said that had tried desperately to provide for herself and the children, but that he has simply got into debt, due to having a large family and being on very low wages. She described how she had visited him in the cell at Scotland Street and had been appalled at how ill Charles had become during the six months he had been in the gaol. Mrs Musgrave also told the inquest that she was convinced that it was the poor diet of just bread and water which had brought on her husbands death. One of the other prisoners, James Glaves was the next witness.

He told the coroner that the deceased had been his cell mate since his incarceration in the Debtors Gaol. He said Musgrave was always complaining of being hungry and he felt that his last illness was purely from the want of enough to eat. Glaves admitted that his cell mate had been gradually sinking in health and that he had been with him when he died a little before 1 am earlier that same morning. The witness said that there were many prisoners who felt the same, and pointed out that out of the 6d money allowance, they had to either provide their own candles or sit in the dark.
Another prisoner called Thomas Atkinson then gave his evidence and said that he too had been in the same cell as Musgrave and Glaves for the last four weeks.

The witness agreed that the deceased man had been ill ever since he had known him. This prisoner also complained that there simply was not enough to eat. At this point the inquest was adjourned to the following Tuesday 12 September 1837 to be held in the Coroners office at noon. When the adjourned inquest was opened, the medical officer for the Sheffield workhouse, Mr Foster was the first to give evidence. He told the coroner that his duty was to also attend the prisoners in the debtors prison. The surgeon told the jury that he had been called to see Musgrave three months previously with an infection in his chest and that under his treatment the man had quickly recovered.

Since then, Mr Foster said he had visited him again and treated him for slight ailments of the abdomen and bowels. The witness told the jury that he had been called in again late in the evening of Thursday 7 September when he found Charles Musgrave to be insensible and in a dying state. He said that he ordered mustard plasters to be attached to his calves in order to produce a reaction if possible. Mr Foster stated that during his attendance on the prisoner, he had made no complaint of being hungry or indeed of anything else. Mr Badger asked the surgeon if he thought the allowance for the prisoners was sufficient. In reply he stated that it was, but he felt that the money allowance should be increased to 1s a week.

Another surgeon, Mr Jackson was the next witness and he said that along with three other surgeons they had completed the post mortem on Charles Musgrave. He said they had found the body to be ‘spare but not emaciated’ and internally there had been no obvious signs of disease. Mr Jackson stated that his organs were healthy, but indicated that the deceased man had a pre-disposition for consumption. He concluded by saying that the cause of death was effusion of serum on the brain, although they could not establish the cause of such effusion. The coroner asked the surgeon if the diet had affected the man’s death, but Mr Jackson said he thought not. However from the general appearance of the deceased, that he should not suppose the want of food had caused his death.

However Mr Jackson did recommend more meat in the prisoners diet, rather than the increase of money allowed would be better. Another surgeon, Dr Knight who had also attended the post mortem, said that he concurred with his colleagues conclusions with one exception. He felt that the man had showed signs of apoplexy and he felt that was the cause of the man’s death. However, although he felt that Musgrave’s death had not been caused by the want of food, he could not for certain say that it had not accelerated his death.

Mr Badger then summed up for the jury and stated that he was quite satisfied with the evidence. The room was then cleared in order for the jury to make their verdict. After just an hour they found that:

‘That the deceased died in Scotland Street gaol from effusion on the brain; but the jury are of opinion that the gaol allowance is too little. They strongly solicit the proper authorities to cause an immediate increase of suitable food as recommended by Dr Knight and Mr Jackson.’