William – A Convict Made Good

Apparently Australians are proud to find they are descended from a british convict transported to Australia in the nineteenth century. Well I am quite pleased to have found a namesake who was a ‘convict made good’

I have used online newspapers to trace the life of William Pitchforth across both countries. William was born in 1830 in Elland, the son of Jacob and Sarah Hobson. Jacob was the son of Jacob who was in turn the son of Allen, born in 1744. William’s father Jacob and my gt*3 grandfather were brothers and sons of Jacob, Allen’s son.

William childhood was probably chaotic. I suspect that his father was incarcerated in the Wakefield House of Correction in 1841 when William was 11 but I have not found the rest of the family in the census of that year. His Uncle William was convicted in 1843 at the York Assizes and was transported to Australia for 7 years.

By the1851 census William was a lodger with Mary Farrer on Upper Edge. His trade was ‘Stone Quarries’ which is unfortunately enigmatic. However a couple of years later when he married Charlotte Lumb, the register writer who perhaps knew William’s circumstances recorded his occupation as ‘delver.’

Early in 1856 William was in Huddersfield along with D Byrom of Lockwood; C. Kendal and H Wilson (Slasher) of Huddersfield. They attacked and robbed a butcher called Richard Poppleton. Popplewell’s premises were in the Shambles at Huddersfield and he was going home to Kirk Heaton (some 5 miles distant) late on a Saturday night in January. Near his home, he was set upon and robbed of £91, a considerable sum equivalent to perhaps thousands of pounds at today's values. The Leeds Mercury reported the incident on Tuesday 15^th January under the heading of ‘Garrotte Robbery.’ A week later the paper was reporting the arrest of the four and their appearance in the dock at the Guildhall in Huddersfield on Saturday 19^th January. The story was retold and witnesses to appeared to identify the assailants. William Pitchforth stood out because he was exceptionally tall, standing, as he did, at over 6 feet. Two women thought that Pitchforth and the person he was with could have been a courting couple. Wilson proved he was in the Rope and Anchor public house at the time. The magistrates decided that only William had been identified and committed him to the York assizes the following Tuesday where he was sentenced to eight years penal servitude. He was released in 1864.

Old habits resurfaced soon after William was released. In March 1864, he was again before the magistrates at Halifax and the Leeds Mercury reported the appearance. There was some comedy with his co-accused who thought he had only been in gaol twice. The judge indulged in the banter and extracted from Nicholl two more gaol sentences. However, Nichol pleaded guilty and received a fifth sentence of four years.

William Pitchforth did not plead guilty to the charge of breaking and entering, along with Nichol, the house of Robert Sharratt and stealing items that included a woman’s shawl which they sold two days later at Chambers’ beer house. William’s lawyer argued that William was merely an onlooker who helped another person drive a good bargain. The jury accepted this argument and found William not guilty. The judge clearly believed him guilty and remarked that William was ‘a lucky man, seeing that you have just returned from eight years’ penal servitude.’

This brush with the Law so soon after being released from gaol did not deter William. From the account of the committal proceedings at Wakefield Quarter Sessions, it appears that William and his friend John Holland were living in Wakefield and William was a labourer. On the 16th May 1864 William and Holland were  walking along Kirkgate Huddersfield when they passed a carrier's wagon which was outside the premises of a man called Taylor. The carrier, William Wood of Stainland, said that he had been given a parcel by Watts Dyson, a linen draper, whose shop was also in Kirkgate, to be delivered to Holywell Green. The parcel contained 60 pairs of stockings for both men and women and some small shawls or scarves. Whilst Wood was driving his cart through Kirkgate, Holland took the parcel. Unfortunately for him and William Pitchforth, they were seen by William Firth who later told the police that he saw the two disappear down Rosemary Lane. Firth told Wood what he had seen and they went to the police. Meanwhile, Holland and William entered the Huddersfield Arms and taking the landlady to one side enquired if she would be interested in buying a scarf. She expressed some interest and Holland pulled the scarves from his pocket. The landlady purchased two for which she paid 2/- then went to bring her neighbours to buy more of the stolen goods.

Foolishly, the two mendicants stayed the night at the beer house where they were apprehended early the next day. Police Inspector Ramsden White told the judges at the hearing, one of 51 that day, that when he searched William he found some of the stolen goods between his trousers and shirt and more goods were found on Holland.

William was legally represented at the hearing and did not plea. He was convicted at Bradford Assizes in 1865 and sentenced to 10 years transportation. He was held at the prison in Chatham for at least a year as he is recorded in the list of Prisoners for June1866 when the Overseer reported that William's behaviour had been very good. William was transported to Freemantle Prison aboard the ship Corona which left England in October 1866 and arrived in Australia in December that year, some 18 months after his conviction.

What was it about William that got him into these situations? Either he was stupid and mixed with the wrong people or perhaps he was a deliberate thief. He certainly moved about but who were his accomplices? Did he know them or was he just unlucky in his choice of accomplices?

William was held at the prison in Chatham for at least a year as he is recorded in the list of Prisoners for June 1866 when the Overseer reported that William's behaviour had been very good. William was transported to Freemantle Prison aboard the ship Corona which left England in October 1866 and arrived at Freemantle, Australia in December, some 18 months after his conviction. Records of convicts transported are on many websites. I used the Dead Persons’ Society of Perth to find William’s history when he arrived. This helped to confirm that the person who arrived in at Freemantle was the same as the person who had been in front of judges three times; his height and job confirmed his identity.

Details from William's prison record reveal that he was unmarried, could read and he was a stonemason by trade. The record confirms his height (6ft 1 inch) and provides many other details of his appearance. He had brown hair, blue eyes and a ‘long’ face. He was physically fit and muscular and carried the scars of his trade: a cut to his little finger on his left hand, several cuts on his left arm and a scar on his chest that may have been the result of violence. He seems to have kept out of further trouble as he was given a ticket of leave (parole) in April 1871 and afterwards worked for himself as a stonemason. He was finally released in June 1875 at Champion Bay which is about 400 miles north of Perth. William served his time and thus was out of the news.

Within a few years he was back in the newspapers apparently up to his old tricks. The Police Gazette issued on 12th December 1877 reported that William had been fined £1 along with William Abbott for ‘rescuing a prisoner whilst in custody’ and three years later he was wanted for the theft of a silver watch and chain from Owen McGuiness. The police knew where he was because he was arrested the soon after and the property recovered.

William managed to keep out of trouble for six years but then was fined £1 for resisting “the police in the execution of their duty.”

A month later William, who by now was the owner of a general store, was the victim of a larceny. The Gazette of 23^rd June 1886 reported that William Allen was ‘strongly suspected’ of stealing rings, tobacco and money. Two years later, the Gazette of 23 May 1888 reported that John Mullins had stolen a 5 chambered Bulldog revolver from William’s residence on Marine Terrace at Geraldton and in the September the Police Gazette reported that cigars, cigarettes and tobacco were stolen from William. Again the Gazette indicated who the culprit was, one William James.

From the items in the Police Gazette, it is clear that William had an uneasy relationship with the local police, not helped by his history, nature and physique. Just how difficult that relationship was became apparent when I read a report in the Western Australian Times dated 18^th February 1879 which relied on an article in Victoria Express a fortnight before. William had been out ‘on a bit of a bender’ with someone called Johnson and they were lying down in the rushes near the beach when Constable Dunn came across them and decided to arrest William, a mistake as Dunn was a much smaller man. Now it is clear from this report and others that the Victoria Express was “known as a spicy paper, that is, it was written in a lively style” and not above embellishing a story; but claiming that William was a quiet man, never before in trouble with the police was certainly stretching reality! Nonetheless, the story that unfolded was truly a shocking example of police brutality. Dunn attacked William with his truncheon so violently that he broke his leg. Dunn, now joined by Constable Green forced William to walk to the station where he was left overnight without medical treatment.

William appeared in court three months after the event “with his foot still in a sling, the result of the savage treatment which he received at the hands of the aforesaid policeman.” He was fined for being drunk which he admitted but cleared of a charge of assaulting a policeman. The Times used the incident to denounce the police for the frequency of violence. The magistrate that day was Dr Charles Elliot.

Some seventeen years later the story of how William’s injury was treated after that beating came to light in a libel case that was heard in May 1895. The medical officer for Geraldton had sued the Victoria Express for libel over a letter it had published that claimed; “Geraldton can show more cripples discharged from its hospital than any place I've been in. Surely they must be regarded as living monuments of the skill of the Government Medico.” The medical officer was Dr Charles Elliot.

In its defence, the paper summoned William and other past patients to testify. The story that the paper’s witnesses told was one of neglect and incompetence in treatment and of appalling conditions: infrequent visits by Elliot, the medical officer, nurses who were all ‘old men’ and drunken patients and orderlies. Wounds were left untreated and one man’s became infected with maggots.

William had gone to hospital as a result of his altercation with the Police Constable Dunn. Elliot had set his leg soon after he was admitted but did not see the doctor for five weeks when, on removing the bandages, he saw a piece of bone “about the size of a two shilling piece sticking up.” The bone was reset and a further eight weeks elapsed before the doctor examined William. Fed up with being in hospital, George discharged himself but did visit the ‘outpatients’ several times over the next nine months. All the time William had to use crutches and on a visit to the outpatients, when George attempted to put his leg down the bone slipped. Elliot exclaimed “Good God, you'll tumble down in the street."

William told the court that Elliot had said he could do no more and he would have to go to Perth to get the injury treated. William’s friends gave him the money for the journey. Waylen, the specialist at Perth, declared that the leg was not set properly but he could not treat him and sent him back to Geraldton! Again, William needed the support of his friends for the return journey.

Some four weeks later William’s leg was again set by Elliot and another doctor called Ennis who had seen William at Perth, along with Waylen. This time the doctors put the reset leg in an iron frame and William spent a further 11 weeks in hospital. So far 15 months had elapsed and the leg was still not mended!

When George Stone, a witness for the plaintiff Elliot entered the witness box, a different story emerged. Stone, the dispenser at the hospital, described a clean and orderly hospital with a conscientious medical officer who sometimes visited the hospital many times a day, always doing a ward round. Stone particularly recalled William’s time in hospital when, although he told the dispenser that he would like more ‘stimulant’, William was never intoxicated. However he recalled that William had confided to getting drunk on his first night out of hospital. He had slipped and heard the leg bones ‘go click.’

The case went against the newspaper and the editor, J M Drew, was also found guilty of contempt. On his release after serving 14 days, he wrote to Western Australian newspaper complaining that the judge had declared that the accusation of neglect to be false. In his letter, Drew quoted William’s testimony

I several times complained to the doctor of the iron chair around my leg working into the flesh. I have seen a week elapse without the doctor going to the hospital at all.

Drew also defended his request for his witnesses to show their limbs, a request the judge had dismissed as a trick. Drew claimed that William’s leg showed ”the crooked setting and the hole which he swore the iron chair had eaten into his leg” but was also discoloured through poor circulation and as another medical witness said, “if the same conditions obtained at the time of the fracture he had no doubt it would have militated against the satisfactory healing of the fracture.”

From these articles, it is clear that William’s life was not easy. A poor childhood, and teenage years during the ‘hungry forties’ were followed by criminal activities in England in his twenties. He does seem to have made efforts to ‘go straight’ once released in Western Australia but there were set backs, not helped by his propensity to get drunk. After the libel case described above, he only appears in directories for the town which suggests he was succeeding. He clearly bore the evidence of a hard life on his body but lived to about 70 years of age.

Richard and Charles

Richard and Charles

In the turbulent years of the early part of the nineteenth century, two men found themselves caught up in the controversies of the period. One achieved national fame whilst the other remained resolutely rooted in his native West Riding. They found themselves on the same side over some matters and at vehemently opposing each other over others.  One was a Tory and Anglican, the other a Whig entrepreneur. Between them they encapsulated the politics of the era.

Richard Oastler was born in Leeds at the end of 1789 to Robert and Sarah Oastler, the youngest of eight children.  As a teenager, Robert (born 1748) had adopted Methodism and maintained this faith over the next 50 years. His faith created a rift with his father that resulted in him moving to his uncle’s household in Thirsk. It was 25 years before Robert returned to his native Leeds where he developed a profitable business as a cloth merchant. Leeds at the time was in the vanguard of the industrialisation of the cloth industry. Robert and Sarah spent much energy in ‘good works,’ including their children in visiting the poor and the sick and thus inculcating in them a sense of service to others that was predicated on their Christian beliefs. It was this concern for others that made Robert abandon his business as he could not reconcile the way in which the increasing use of machinery in woollen cloth making was ‘an oppression of  the poor.’ This strong conviction in the imperative of caring for others and opposition to the mechanisation of weaving were beliefs that Richard inherited.

In early adulthood, Richard first wanted to become a lawyer but his father prohibited this. His next choice was architecture and he was apprenticed to a Wakefield architect for four years until an eye infection caused him to abandon this profession as well. He then developed a successful business as a merchant in Leeds.

Whilst in Wakefield, he found a cause to champion. In the election of 1807, he supported William Wliberforce who campaigned to abolish the slave trade, a cause that chimed with Richard’s upbringing both at home and at the Moravian School at Fulneck. In Leeds he immersed himself in good works along with Michael Saddler and Joseph Dickinson. When a typhoid epidemic struck the town, these three and others went into the dwellings of those with the disease to nurse them. It was through this experience he realised the reality of the precarious life of the poor but his response was religious rather than political. Indeed he joined a local force to maintain law and order in Leeds when social unrest threatened.

Richard married Mary Tatham of Nottingham in 1816 and for two years they prospered. Then a series of misfortunes befell them. Early in 1819 their daughter died a few days after her birth and the tragedy was repeated with their son and second child in December. Then in 1819 during one of the many recessions of the century, Richard became bankrupt. He managed to pay his creditors and then quit business life completely.

A year later, he succeeded his father as steward to Thomas Thornhill, owner of Fixby Hall and its estate. Thornhill was the eighteenth male to own the property although he lived in Norfolk and had not visited his Fixby property for over 10 years. Robert had been fortunate to secure the position when he ceased his business activities and the same fortune favoured Richard. From this time Richard’s concern for the poor became increasingly aligned with the nostalgia for a passing age. Industrialisation had been a source of unease to Robert and the upheaval it caused to the established order exercised Richard greatly. As steward, Richard managed the estate business and so had regular contact with farmers and labourers.

Charles Pitchforth was born in 1795 to Solomon and Mercy (Crowther) and so was a few years younger than Richard Oastler. Solomon had inherited Shawlaith Farm on Elland Edge between Elland and Rastrick from his father, James, and this was Charles’ childhood home. Charles married well (to Elizabeth Hanson) and moved into Boothroyd House near Rastrick that had been in his wife’s family for generations. Charles’ father had embraced the industrialisation that the Oastlers abhorred and built up a substantial portfolio of property that included land, mines, quarries and mills. This portfolio was inherited by Charles and his three brothers but within a few years two of them had relinquished involvement in its management to Charles and his brother Abraham. Charles and Abraham embraced the new age whole heartedly and grew rich; they sunk coal mines and quarried “Elland Flags” in from their land on Elland Edge. They owned both mills where they were the producers and mills that they leased to others. They leased and sold land to the railway and canal companies. From the 1850s they were instrumental in bringing gas to Elland. They were members of the civic forums of the Elland and Rastrick and both were churchwardens of their local church. In all the public records of elections Charles and Abraham voted for Whig candidates.

Thus in almost every aspect of political and social life, Charles and Richard were opposites. Yet the first time they are recorded together, they were on the same side. In 1827 a new vicar was appointed to the parish of Halifax. Halifax was no ordinary parish: it had two parochial chapels that were virtually autonomous and ten chapels of ease. The term chapel does not indicate the size of the church building which were, in the Halifax parish,  large churches. At this time, clergy were paid through tithes which were categorised as greater (rectorial) tithes, the product of the arable fields and value of stock, and lesser (vicarial) tithes, raised from labour and minor produce i.e. from the tenant farmers and weavers. Previous vicars of Halifax had never demanded their lesser tithes, so it was a surprise to all when the new vicar, Charles Musgrave, having preached his first sermon as vicar of Halifax, retreated to his other parish to consider the tithes of Halifax.

On 1^st September 1827, he wrote to the ‘principal proprietors’ of the parish inviting them to meet him when he would explain the results of his deliberations about which he had sought the advice of the ‘highest legal authorities in London.’ Those who received the letter did not think it too significant as only 20 or so attended but those present quickly realised the enormity of the vicar’s demands and so the Churchwardens of each chapel were asked to nominate delegates. Richard Oastler represented Fixby and Charles Pitchforth was nominated for Rastrick. Much of detail of the saga come from a long account written by Oastler so is very biased. However, William White in his 1837 directory stated that “The present vicar, after his induction, in 1827, had a long war with his parishioners, respecting the rights and interests of the living.”

The vicar’s party set out his claim to the tithes whilst not wanting to give details of what was being claimed. Oastler extracted the list that included: every 10^th day of milk from the cows and a tenth share of produce. Later that day the value of the claim being made became evident as the vicar let it be known that if he was promised £1500 per year, he would be happy to settle. In the afternoon the delegates of Fixby (including Oastler) and Fixby (including Pitchforth) went to the vicarage to seek clarification. They suggested that the parish would find the required amount provided the Vicar let the matter rest. The vicar replied that he was not prepared to ‘receive a gratuity from his parishioners’ and would not place himself before them ‘in forma pauperis.’ Other vicars, he told them, had pursued their tithe entitlement and been successful and his other parish had settled with him with no one complaining. Further, his brother knew Oastler’s employer and the vicar was sure that Thornhill would agree to his claims. So the meeting broke up with the vicar rejecting the offer.

Oastler got to work on his township of Fixby. By the time the delegates met again he was able to report that they would not consult a lawyer as they were convinced that, since Fixby was a township, it owed the vicar nothing. Oastler claimed that the milk tithe alone would be worth £15,000 and the total would be more that £35,000. A delegate from Halifax said he had calculated the total to be nearer £12,000. Whether £12,000 or £35,000, these were enormous sums of money. So a settlement of £1500 (worth about £75,000 in 2010) would seem eminently reasonable.

The other delegates were asked for the opinion in their townships. One by one they said the same thing, they would resist. The Skircoat delegate, Goodall, caught the mood of the times when he said that the vicar’s claim to one tenth of the net profit on all corn ground “was a property tax on the miller.” The Sowerby delegate spoke eloquently of the hardships being endured as a result of the “panic in the markets. “ Halifax was in the vanguard of the industrialisation that was accelerating, with many non-conformist churches were opening. At the same time laws requiring anyone holding civil or military office to be a member of the established church were repealed and within ten years the church would lose control of births marriages and deaths.  Yet the vicar was seeking to derive his income from everyone in the parish, through a form of taxation designed hundreds of years previously.

The vicar now tried a different tack. His solicitor wrote to a number of Halifax gentlemen inviting them to a private meeting that excluded the delegates. The gentlemen considered that the current income was insufficient to support properly ‘the vicar’s important position in the parish’ and resolved that some of them should meet the vicar to see if he would agree jointly to seek an Act of Parliament to commute the tithes and Easter offerings ‘on receiving the annual sum of …‘ But what sum? The gentlemen left this vital detail blank. This group who met the vicar and his solicitor bargained from £1500 (the gentlemen) and £2500 (the vicar) to a compromise of £2000. The vicar agreed and hardly was the ink was dry, than the vicar had ridden to the Archbishop to get his agreement

When the delegates of the townships met on the 10^th October, they were presented with a situation that appeared to be a fait accompli and they decidedly unhappy. Although Christopher Rawson of Halifax and Mr Swallow of Warley offered a resolution to accept the proposal, the majority thought they only had powers to oppose, not negotiate. Richard Oaslter told the meeting that he was instructed by his employer, Thornhill, to oppose the vicar, an order that he agreed with. He said that he and Thornhill had ‘no wish to go petitioning Parliament to let us off’ before launching a vitriolic attack of those of ‘the vicar’s party’ whilst exonerating the vicar himself. By comparison, Charles Pitchforth’s way with words was far more limited and his manner probably much rougher. He asked about the land that the vicar owned in the townships where enclosure had already been completed. Was this part of the deal? One of the ‘Halifax gentlemen’ who had joined the meeting answered that the enclosure acts only dealt with tithes, not the Easter offerings, before strongly advocating the proposition. ’Is the vicar to have the land already allotted to him?’ asked Pitchforth a second time, finally extracting an unequivocal answer of ‘undoubtedly.’ With few words, Pitchforth had opened yet another can of worms: if the vicar had never received the tithes, why had he gained land in the enclosed townships? This could only be in lieu of the Easter offerings and so these townships should not pay any annual contribution.

At another point, Oastler, attacking the vicar’s party, spoke of duplicity and underhand proceedings (why had Halifax not sent delegates when they had attended the meeting of gentlemen in great numbers?) When Oastler listed the key features including the sum of £2000, Pitchforth interrupted him to say that he was partly to blame since he had definitely heard the vicar say he would take £1500. Pitchforth had clearly misunderstood the other’s broader argument. The meeting became a series of proposals and amendments and when an amendment was proposed by Turner (Warley delegate) that “the claim of the vicar be resisted” Pitchforth seconded it. This disappeared amongst the many others and a little later Oastler presented a set of resolutions. Turner proposed to withdraw his earlier suggestion and adopt Oastler’s resolutions and again Pitchforth seconded. Pitchforth seemed to have decided his own mind and was prepared to second any motion that he thought would get the outcome he desired. Oastler was playing a long game as he said the resolutions could not be adopted as he had not proposed them! Rather they should form the discussion at the next meeting. The meeting was clearly going around in circles so the chairman repeated the first resolution but again Oastler’s set were ‘pressed on the meeting.’ Finally they all agreed to adjourn.

The next meeting of the delegates on 24^th October was bad tempered from the start. Oastler wanted to ensure that only delegates voted, a proposal that was seconded by Pitchforth. (Had they spoken about this between the meetings?) This was because the Halifax delegates had said they weren’t really delegates as nobody had delegated them. One, Mr Stocks, took offence and an exchange laced with sarcasm between Stocks and Oastler ensued. Oastler said he was a novice in public business and Stocks offered to teach him. Oastler hoped he would be a good scholar, at which point the chairman intervened.

The chairman read the paper that the Halifax gentleman had produced. “Is this communication now a motion before the meeting?” asked Oastler. “Oh no,” replied the chairman, “merely a reminder.” Oastler responded by another speech in which he again attacked members of the vicar’s party and their methods, including denigrating the delegates as “a parcel of trash” before describing the mood of the Thornhill and the Fixby residents who rejected the vicar’s claim outright, both the principle and the detail. Finally Oastler presented a set of 18 resolutions.

Charles Rawson of Halifax described himself as an intruder on the meeting (i.e. not a delegate) and said he opposed the vicar but thought it best if an agreement could be reached as this would preserve the peace of the parish, remove the burden of Easter Offering from the poor and secure the services of the worthy vicar. Pitchforth retorted that “if the gentlemen of Halifax think they have so excellent a vicar, they ought to pay him themselves and not throw his maintenance on the other townships who derive no benefit from his services.” Norris in seconding Raswon’s amendment took issue with Oastler on the motive of the Halifax gentlemen, saying their proposal was merely a suggestion to help the delegates and refuted the claim of denigration. Back came Oastler, commenting that for a mere suggestion, it had got the support of important players, especially the Archbishop. But Oastler would not quibble; he would give up the term agreement and substitute “unwarrantable interference!”

At this point, the chairman asked the delegates to say what their townships had instructed them to say. Apart from Halifax, only Skircoat and Soyland delegates had been instructed to seek a compromise. All the other 15 townships were ‘decidedly opposed.’ It was clear, said the chairman that an amicable agreement was not likely and suggested that the best course was to let the matter rest until it could be considered more coolly. Pitchforth was having none of this commenting that if they delayed, there would never be an end to the matter.

The meeting now started voting on the first of Oastler’s resolutions which was inflammatory: “the manner in which the sum of £2000 was adopted” was “a direct insult on the Parish and intended to divide.” Instead it had produced a determination “to bind ourselves with a bond that shall never be broken.” As he read out the resolution Oastler could not resist another sideswipe at one of the Halifax gentlemen who had reportedly claimed that they would carry the Act whatever the opinion of the parish and the inhabitants would be made to pay £2000 per year. Yet another heated exchange followed. Oastler was getting into his stride and when the chairman said he thought the resolution too harsh, Oastler said it was before the meeting and should be voted on. Disagreement between the Halifax gentlemen surfaced, revelations about how the sum of £2000 was reached at the vicarage and irrelevant comments about the value of stone were made. Oastler repeated the word “trash” and the refutations came again. The chairman tried to put an end to this bickering and Oastler triumphantly withdrew the resolution in the light of the “delightful exposure and confession that has now taken place.” Clearly this was a man who needed teaching about public business!

So the meeting now only had 17 resolutions to vote on! They started voting on each but by the fourth vote, the delegates were in danger of losing the will to live and voted on the rest as a whole. Nobody dissented but after the voting the Halifax ‘delegates’ disclaimed having any part in the resolutions.

Oastler had got his mandate to set up a central committee to fight the vicar and to levy the townships to fund the fight. Oastler, through his organisational and more particularly his rhetorical skills deftly held the townships together and ultimately triumphed. The vicar was forced to accept £1450 per year and the deal was enshrined in Law in 1829.

Ten years would pass before Charles Pitchforth and Richard Oastler appeared together again in the press. This time they were on opposite sides of the Poor Law reform debate. For Oastler, the established order demanded that the poor were looked after in their own homes and their betters had a responsibility towards them. For Whigs such as Pitchforth, the poor were victims of their own behaviour. Oastler with his usual fervour and zeal spoke and organised protests in the area.

At a meeting at Rastrick where Pitchforth was church warden and a poor law guardian, letters between him and the governor of the workhouse at Thetford in Norfolk were read. Charles had written to enquire of the governor, Mr Gardener, whether Oastler’s account of his visit there was accurate. The account had been printed in The London Dispatch and People's Political and Social Reformer. Pitchforth told Gardener that Oastler was “using his utmost endeavours to prejudice the labouring class in this part against the Poor Law Amendment Act” and was after ammunition.

Oastler sent a response to Gardener’s letter to the London Despatch refuting each of  his accusations of inaccuracy. He employed his usual invective against Pitchforth who was “very naughty to inform Mr G that I am using my utmost to prejudice the labouring class” Oastler protested that he was endeavouring to “persuade people of all classes of the iniquity of the Act.” Pitchforth, Oastler averred, never reasons on the subject, merely he says “it is the law, mark that,”, “buys books but never says he has read them,” “fancies he is very wise, but has the most unhappy method of communicating wisdom” and has an “unconquerable aversion to being hissed at.” Ouch!

Oastler had cornered Pitchforth at the meeting when the latter attempted to “back out of that tale of his about Mr Power and separation” but Oastler had prevented this by asking the assembly if any had heard him to which they replied “yes we did.” Oastler clearly took no prisoners and Pitchforth was no match for a man like Oastler. (Separating men from women and children was a cornerstone of the workhouse. Oastler objected because, he said, it was contrary to God’s law to separate married couples.) Oastler was scathing of Gardner who informed Pitchforth that Oastler had “acted as a gentleman” whilst in Norfolk, saying that “Mr. Pitchforth is sometimes in my company, and needed no such information.” Although Oastler is using his letter to the London Despatch to show that Gardner is being disingenuous in his account of Oastler’s visit, Oastler repeatedly ridicules Pitchforth by ending his many of his ripostes with “Mark that, Pitchforth.”

In these two episodes when Oastler and Pitchforth’s paths crossed, we have a glimpse of how men (and it was nearly always men) were active in local politics and how these politics were conducted. Particpants were not averse to using strong sentiments when disagreeing with each other. Letters were written to the papers that attacked individuals and the individuals wrote to defend themselves. It was a time when men of business were men who engaged in local and national affairs with a passion that is not often evident today!

Sources

Vicarial Tithes, Halifax: a true statement of facts and incidents. By Richard Oastler, http://books.google.co.uk

Tory Radical: The Life Of Richard Oastler (1946) Cecil Driver http://www.archive.org/details/toryradicaltheli009087mbp

A note about income sources for the church

Tithes were based on the land and the people. Traditionally a tenth of the produce of the land, they were based on agriculture. Tithes were divided into greater (rectorial) tithes, the product of the arable fields and value of stock, and lesser (vicarial) tithes, raised from labour and minor produce i.e. the day labourers and cottagers.

Tithes were gradually replaced by allocation of land which was rented out.

Surplice Fees are fees paid to clergy for conducting services such as marriages and baptisms

Mortuary Fees were paid for burial and in pre-reformation times for the saying of prayers for the souls of the dead.

Easter Offering: the money given by parishioners at the Easter Day services

The income was not simply for the Vicar’s personal use. These fees would cover the cost of maintaining the chancel part of the church, to pay employees (sexton, clerk, etc.) and provide for the church services.

Ann Pitchforth was NOT a jew

I can't recall how many times I've read on Mormon websites that Ann Pitchforth (nee Hughlings)was Jewish. On the LDS site, there is an article by Paul Thomas Smith about John Taylor's mission to the British Isles. He says that  "Elder Taylor rented quarters in the North Quay home of Mr. Solomon Pitchforth, a prosperous Jewish businessman" and later described Ann as Taylor's Jewish landlady.

Why did this error develop and perhaps more importantly why is it still being perpetuated 160 years after Ann's death?

Ann was the daughter of John Hughlings, a Collector of Excise, and had been born in 1801 at Grantham, her mother's home town. She had been educated as the daughter of a gentleman and was proficient at the piano having been taught by ‘the best German teachers’. For John Hughlings to have been a government official in the early nineteenth century, he would have had to be a communicant member of the Church of England.

Solomon was the son of Solomon Pitchforth and his wife Mercy Crowther.  Solomon and Mercy's marriage took place in Halifax Church on August 10th 1789 and Solomon's baptism was recorded on May 25th 1781 and his marriage to Ann Highlings took place in Elland Church on October 3rd 1825.

All the children of Solomon and Ann were baptised in Brighouse Church except the youngest who was born in the Isle of Man.

So all the evidence is that both the Hughlings and the Pitchforth families were solidly Christian.

The erroneous claim about Ann's religion stems from a letter she wrote to the LDS newspaper the "Millennial Star" after she arrived in America in which she described her  “Jewish unbelieving heart.” But as David J. Whittaker in  "John Taylor and Mormon Imprints in Europe, 1840–52" says it seems she was speaking figuratively rather than identifying her genealogical heritage.

Why does the error still persist after so long? Only the LDS can explain that!

 

What Happened at Crigglestone

Why did Joseph disappear so suddenly in 1851? The Wakefield Journal reported an inquest at the Cart and Horses public house. Joseph had been one of group of friends who had enjoyed a day’s pigeon shooting and had repaired to the Cart and Horses as the daylight faded. The room was crowded with men sitting around the edge of the room as well as around a table in the middle of the room. A game ensued of 'shooting the candle' that rapidly was getting out of hand. After the candle had been held above Francis Jagger's head, he he put the candle under the table. But Frost requested one more shot and as the candle was being lit, Joseph Pitchforth took a shot at it with a gun he had requested of Thomas Froggett. Why Joseph did not check the gun, as he had requested others to do, was not recorded but he fired a loaded gun. In direct line of fire was John Dyson who was fatally shot at point blank range. The shot hit Dyson in the groin and his trousers were ‘driven inwards’ and covered in blood. He was carried upstairs and laid in a bed but died the following day.

The inquest jury returned a verdict that Dyson had been ‘accidentally shot’ and severely reprimanded Pitchforth and Froggatt for carelessness in handling a gun.  The landlord was advised to be much more cautious and not allow guns to remain in his house.

So to what extent did this appalling event feature in Joseph’s departure to America? He had avoided a criminal conviction (was manslaughter not recognised in the 1850s?) but what did the community think and how did it react? Joseph was depicted as a responsible person by Jagger specifically reporting that Joseph had insisted a gun be checked. Yet he was the one who fired a loaded gun. Was he ostracised and his life made impossible after the incident? Perhaps he decided to leave for America to put this affair behind him.

Joseph had been married for three months when the shooting took place. How did Mary react? Did she refuse to travel to America because she did not want to remain with him?  Indeed was she given the option or did he simply disappear?

Mary remarried less than five years after her first marriage, again in Rotherham. She used the name Mary Pitchforth although she is recorded as a spinster, and gave the same details about her father that were recorded at her marriage to Joseph.

By 1861 Joseph was in Ontario. He had another wife and a six year old daughter. Assuming that the daughter was his child and his marriage predated his child’s birth, the marriage was between April 1851 and 1855 and probably at the later end of this range as his wife was only 19 when their daughter was born. Ellen was recorded as being born in Ontario which suggests this was the location for the marriage.

It is seems likely that Joseph was able to put the tragedy of John Dyson behind him and lived a normal life in Canada. What of his family back in Grigglestone? Of his nine siblings, eight reached maturity.  James (b1828) became a policeman in Doncaster, Thomas Stafford (b1834) was a well-respected photographer in Saltburn, Robert Stafford (b1836) was a builder in Alverthorpe and Richard Parker (b1845) had an honourable career in the Army. The second generation produced some notable people, including a member of the Royal Academy (Roland Vivian) and an explorer of the Arctic (Hector James Henry) who has a fjord named after him. Was Joseph remembered by them or was he written out of the family’s history?

If you have a Pitchforth in your tree, please do contact me, I may be able to share some history. That’s the offer; the request is that if any one in the Toronto area can help uncover something of Joseph’s life in Canada, I’d be very grateful.

Off to Canada

An idle few moments saw me look at a web site mentioned in the Huddersfield FHS journal for October 2010 (automatedgenealogy.com.) Always on the lookout for sightings of the PITCHFORTH name I went to the site and entered the name. Up came Martha Pitchforth living with her daughter Ellen, in the household of her grandson Laurence Wilson (Ellen’s second son) in Waterloo, Ontario (west of Toronto) according to the 1901 census. The usual details were available and these told me that Martha was 65 and a US citizen.

Not much to go on I thought, so I sketched a possible tree. As I drew, up popped an eMail from my fellow researcher of Wakefield Pitchforths, Laurence Chase. We correspond intermittently when we find something of interest. His eMail, the first for a year or two, contained details of his search of the Canadian census held by Ancestry. An amazing co-incidence. He had searched earlier census records and discovered that Martha was the wife of one Joseph Pitchforth, born 1824, a carpenter. In 1861 there was 6 year old Ellen and a similar story was told in 1871. By 1881, Martha is with her daughter who has named her eldest son Jospeh. So the evidence is growing stronger. Ancestry has Joseph’s (born 1824) death in 1872.

A Google search of Rootsweb entries showed a Wakefield Journal story in Feb 1851 that told of an accidental shooting of J DYSON by John HEMINGWAY and J Pitchforth at Crigglestone after a day’s shooting. FreeBMD suggests that Dyson died of the wound. So here is a motive for Joseph disappearing without trace after 1851.

A very helpful person at Wakefield library has told me its an interesting story and I've asked them to print it. 

An update next week.