During this hiatus when I am unable to access facebook, I have used the time to good effect. Facebook are now requiring me to send a ‘selfie’ in order to rectify whatever contravention I have been found guilty of. However not having a mobile, I am unable to do it myself and once more am relying on my son Chris to help me do this at the weekend.

However I am, at the present time making the final proof reading of a new Rotherham book, which is, as yet, untitled. (Any suggestions will be gratefully received) I came upon a most intriguing case, which once again illustrates the way that women were treated during the nineteenth century. However this young girl had her youth and beauty to defend herself with, which resulted in a judge becoming her shining knight, who thankfully came to her rescue.

In most cases of concealment of birth, the police were integral in establishing who the mother of the child had been. Needless to say their opinions were always taken very seriously by local coroners and judges. However in this case, a police officer was castigated for his brutality in his questioning of the young woman concerned, shortly after she had given birth.

Julia Newton was a twenty one year old domestic servant, who by October of 1877 had worked for the past six years for a widow called Mrs Elizabeth Harris. She lived in a house on Mountenoy Road, off Moorgate Road, Rotherham, in a most select part of the town and Mrs Harris was reputed to be a very respectable woman. So when news got about that a dead, illegitimate baby had been found in the house, it caused quite a sensation in the town. On Thursday 4 October 1877 Julia had gone to see her mistress and complained of feeling ill.

Mrs Harris allowed her to go to bed early, but the next day the girl was still in bed and she complained of feeling much worse. A surgeon, Dr Knight was quickly sent for and he examined the girl carefully. To Mrs Harris’s great shock he told her that her servant had recently been confined of a child. Sternly, and in the presence of her mistress, Dr Knight asked Julia where the child was. The terrified girl, at first denied anything of the sort, until the surgeon told her that therefore he would have to call in the police.

As a result she was almost hysterical by the time Inspector Parker arrived, but if she thought he would deal more carefully with her, she was very much mistaken. He promptly informed her that in view of the doctors conclusions, he would have to search her room. With that pronouncement, he proceeded to open drawers and inspect all her clothes for signs that she had indeed given birth. At first her employer Elizabeth Harris stood in the bed room with the Inspector and her servant, but as he started to search, she withdrew and stood just outside the door.

Meanwhile Inspector Parker was busy opening one of the girls own personal boxes, which was standing by the bedroom fireplace. Inside he soon found the dead body of a newly born male child, wrapped in a piece of calico. Roughly he lifted it up by the shoulders and, it was alleged, shoved it into Julia’s face. Only then did she break down and admit that the baby was hers and that it had been born the previous night, dead. Mrs Harris who had been within earshot of what was happening, then came back into the room. Seeing the officer holding the dead child, Mrs Harris was clearly shocked at the sight of it.

Julia immediately broke down once again as she told her mistress ‘its mine: I just did not know what to do with it.’ After her confession, Inspector Parker had no option but to call a cab and take Julia Newton into custody charged with concealing a birth. She was removed to the Inspectors own house, which was attached to the police station in the town centre. Once there, he left her in the custody of his wife, who gently attended to the distraught girl. Eventually she was placed in one of the police cells and surgeon Mr W A Garrard, a partner to Dr Knight, was asked by Inspector Parker to examine her and confirm that she had indeed given birth.

The Coroner Mr Wightman was informed and he requested Mr Garrard to also undertake the post mortem on the body along with Dr Knight. As a result of their findings, Julia was brought in front of the Rotherham Magistrates two days later on Saturday 6 October 1877, where she pleaded guilty. However little could be established until after both the post mortem and the inquest had been carried out, so the prisoner was simply remanded in custody. The inquest itself was held at the College Inn on Monday 8 October and the first witness was Inspector Parker himself.

He told the coroner and the jury that the prisoner had finally admitted to him that she had been confined of the child in the early hours on the morning of Friday 5 October. Surgeon Mr Garrard then stated that he had carried out the post mortem, however his conclusions were unclear as he had not been able to establish if the child had breathed separately from its mother after birth. The surgeon told the inquest that proving a child had led a separate existence was very difficult due to the size of the tiny lungs. The jury retired for a short while before returning a verdict that the child had died at birth or immediately afterwards, but the cause of death was unknown.

As a result, Julia Newton was brought back before the bench on Thursday 18 October 1877 where, thankfully she was defended by a Mr Hoyland. Mr Peagram prosecuted and he gave the details of the discovery of the little body to the court. In Julia’s defence, Mr Hoyland pointed out that his client had never tried to hide the fact that she had given birth when challenged, and instead had readily admitted it when confronted with the body. Nevertheless she was found guilty and ordered to take her trial at the next Assizes.

However when the Spring Assizes for the West Riding of Yorkshire took place on Monday 1 April of the following year, the judge Mr Justice Hawkins was particularly scathing of the principal witnesses. He demanded to know from Mrs Harris, how she could have treated her servant in such a brutal and abrupt manner, after she had given her six years of faithful service? The poor woman hardly knew how to answer. Nevertheless the main part of Mr Justice Hawkins’ disgust was held for Inspector Parker who admitted what he had done, after finding the body of the child.

The officer told the judge that he had asked the prisoner if she had given birth to the baby? Surprisingly, the judge asked him what right he had to ask a most indecent and improper question without the least authority? The officer was clearly nonplussed as he answered ‘I simply asked it’. Mr Justice Hawkins told him that he had no right to ask such a question. The Inspector then began to describe how he had continued to search Julia’s room after her confession. Once again the judge looked appalled as he demanded to know why he did that, before enquiring ‘was he hoping to find another child?’

Inspector Parker stated that he had not, but he quite properly said that he was looking for a sign that any preparation had been made for the birth, such as baby clothes for example. Then the surgeon Mr Garrard gave the medical evidence and described how he had carried out the post mortem. He stated that he had externally examined the little body carefully, but there were no signs of violence upon it that he could see. The surgeon again repeated that he could not say with any confidence whether or not the child had been born alive or not.

However he admitted that when he found the little body, he had lifted it up and showed it to the prisoner. Mr Justice Hawkins asked him ‘what right he had to do such a thing.’ He pointed out the fact that after giving birth under such traumatic circumstances, the girl must have been evidently quite ill? The Inspector looked most surprised at this attack, as he too struggled to answer the question. Not surprisingly at this point, the judge in summing up for the jury proceeded to deliver such a scathing and unexpected attack on the witnesses, that the court was silent in shock.

He told the jury:

‘What on earth could have induced Mrs Harris to act in the way she did, disgusts me. This poor girl, having respectably conducted herself for six years and who she had keep her in her service, did not deserve such treatment. When she got into trouble, instead of giving her friendly consolation in her trouble, to have turned into her room a policemen to cross examine her and ransack her boxes, I simply cannot understand.’

Mr Justice Hawkins then, in turn attacked Inspector Parker for doing what he did, whilst she was in such a critical condition after having given birth. He told him:

‘I must say that such conduct discloses a heartlessness and want of feeling which, unless I had heard it sworn to in the witness box, I would not have believed. What was the girl to do with the body? Was she to leave it exposed in the room or to put it away from the gaze of anyone who might come in?’

Then the judge attacked the absent Dr Knight who, for some unknown reason was not in attendance at the trial, for taking it upon his own authority to send for the police. He suggested to the jury that the girl might have confessed to the surgeon, but they could not know ‘as he was not in court to tell them.’ Finally he vented the main part of his wrath at Inspector Parker for, as he put it:

‘He took the little body and with an inhumanity which was incredible, held it up by the shoulders, as if to taunt the poor girl, and to show what a wonderful and astute officer he was. But the girl had answered before he had left the room and admitted that it was her baby. Therefore there was no concealment of birth.’

The judge concluded his diatribe by stating that was the whole of the evidence, but he could not resist adding:

‘I do not know what you think of such treatment. The fact that in her miserable condition, she should have been dragged into a police cell, has shocked me beyond the power of description.’

Mr Justice Hawkins words had some powerful effect on the men of the jury. The foreman, after delivering a verdict of not guilty, added that the jury ‘hoped that Inspector Parker would be spoken to with respect to his conduct.’ Mr Justice Hawkins agreed, and ordered that the girl be instantly discharged. Julia Newton looked very relieved as she was allowed out of the dock. The next day the judge was still very irate, as before the trial of the next prisoner, he stated that he would disallow any costs to the Rotherham witnesses who had attended the trial of Julie Newton.

Although the case was covered most assiduously by the newspapers, what they did not report were possibly the real reason why the judge had castigated the police officer so unmercifully, for merely doing his duty. It had been reported at the beginning of the trial that Julia was a very beautiful, young girl. Had that melted the heart of the judge? Was that the reason why he had been so hard on Inspector Parker? A column in the Sheffield Independent dated 6 April 1878 from someone who called himself ‘A Spectator in Hallamshire’ also criticised the judge. He stated:

‘I have good grounds for believing that the strictures of Mr Justice Hawkins on the conduct of Inspector Parker of Rotherham were founded on an entire misconception of the facts. His indignation savoured too much of the Old Bailey and too little of the calm dignity, which is an important qualification for an impartial judge. Those who are acquainted with the circumstances, know that the prisoner was treated with the greatest kindness and attention by Inspector Parker and his wife.

The cell to which she was taken, by order of the doctor, was previously thoroughly warmed, Six rugs were put on her bed and the prisoner had everything she desired.

It was also untrue that the Inspector had to find the body in order to do his duty, as he had already been informed by the doctor and the girls mistress that she had been confined. It was not true that he held up the body of the dead child to taunt her.

All he actually did was to turn the body over to ascertain its fate and then cover it up, without being aware that she had observed him. It was also true that when he entered the room she smiled at him. The next morning she was visited by the Mayor, a gentleman who is known to be sympathetic and humane. She also had several friends visit her, all of them saw that the greatest care had been taken of her. Later she was allowed to sit in the Inspectors private house, where she expressed great satisfaction with her treatment.’

So ended this sad tale of Julia Newton. Did her youth and beauty save her? If she had been older and quite plain would the conclusion have been any different? Sadly we will never know!