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.