Roche Abbey

Ghostly apparitions at Roche

Matthew Paris, a monk of the Benedictine abbey of St Albans, Hertfordshire, wrote an extensive chronicle in which he mentions ghostly apparitions that occurred near Roche in 1236. Matthew did not himself witness these events, and shows little knowledge of Roche or the north of England, but reports what he has heard from reliable witnesses. These include Richard, earl of Gloucester, a leading magnate of the day.

In May 1236 the locals of Roche were startled when troops of knights, riding on horses and fully armed with shields, standards, helmets and coats of mail suddenly appeared out of thin air. They had never before seen such a sight, and were terrified, yet drawn to the scene, and watched from a distance. They remained transfixed, observing these splendidly armed knights who rode in organised lines, and then engaged in fighting, with a tremendous clash of swords. After several days the vision vanished just as suddenly and mysteriously as it had appeared.

The inhabitants of Roche were not the only ones to witness such a scene, and similar occurrences were noted at Southerfell, Cumberland and Suffolk. In some parts of Ireland the people saw knights, who were bloody, wounded, and dragging their horses behind them, as if returning from battle. Their footsteps could be seen on the ground, and the grass was trampled underfoot where they had walked, causing many to think that that this was not simply a vision. Fearful that these were real knights returning from a real battle, they fled, seeking refuge in churches and castles.

History of Roche Abbey

Roche Abbey is situated in the valley of the Maltby Beck, around nine miles from Doncaster and thirteen miles from modern Sheffield. The site was enclosed by steep limestone cliffs and bordered on Bruneswald, later known as Sherwood Forest. This was a choice location for the monks: it provided privacy and solitude, as well as vital natural resources - water, woodland and stone. Whilst the setting was solitary, it was not remote.

A royal consignment

Extensive repair work was undertaken at Sheffield Castle in 1446-7. The fine limestone from Roche Abbey quarries was chosen for the reconstruction of the tower. The stone was transported by the tenants of John Talbot, lord of Hallamshire: 120 men with sixty wagons and their draught-oxen. This was boon-work, and although the men were not paid for their work, they were provided with bread, beer and other supplies.

[A. H. Thomas, 'Hallamshire Court Rolls of the fifteenth century, pt. 4’, Trans. Hunter Arch. Soc. 11:4 (1924), pp. 341-359 at p. 357.]

It was close to several thoroughfares, within a few miles of the River Trent, and near to the castles of Tickhill and Conisbrough.The magnesium limestone cliffs that bounded the abbey on the north afforded shelter, and also an identity, for the community took their name from these rocky surroundings: the monks of St Mary of the Rock (Roche). Woodland to the east provided timber and fuel, as well as pannage for the pigs. The Maltby Beck supplied water, an essential resource for the daily functioning of a self-sufficient community. Stone channels directed water through the precincts; it flowed from west to east, bisecting the site: the church, cloister and inner court lay to the north of the Beck; the abbot’s lodgings, infirmary and outer court to the south.

Water was needed for a multiplicity of functions: drainage, cooking, washing, the cultivation of crops and the powering of mills; it was also used for liturgical purposes. The nearby quarries provided a ready supply of high-quality stone, which was easy to work with and durable. Contemporaries admired the fine masonry at Roche, and stone from here was transported for use elsewhere, including Sheffield Castle and Windsor Castle. ‘Roche Abbey Stone’ is still quarried from here and considered a superior stone.

The foundation of Roche

Roche was founded in 1147, the Golden year of Cistercian expansion, but a time of civil strife in England. The foundation was a joint venture by Richard de Busli, lord of Maltby, and Richard FitzTurgis, lord of Hooten, whose lands were divided by a small brook. De Busli was lord of Tickhill Castle and held most of the manor of Maltby. Monks from Newminster Abbey in Northumberland, were sent to colonise the house. Newminster was the daughter-house of Fountains Abbey, and Roche was thus affiliated to Fountains and joined to the Clairvaux line.

The two foundation charters reveal a rather unusual arrangement, by which the monks were to choose whether to settle on De Busli’s or FitzTurgis’ side of the Beck. Regardless of their decision both men would be considered equal founders. Durand and his twelve followers selected De Busli’s half, north of the Beck; this was, evidently, a good choice for the community never had to relocate. Cistercian legislation stipulated that an oratory, dormitory, guest-house and gate-house should all be erected before the arrival of a new community, and it has been suggested that lay-brothers from Newminster preceded the monks to construct these temporary huts, which may have been situated where the cloister is today.

Let it be known to all who see or hear this charter that I, Richard FitzTurgis, with the consent of my wife and heirs, have given to God and St Mary, and to the monks of the Rock (Roche), for the salvation of my soul...

[Read more from Richard FitzTurgis’ foundation charter 30 July 1147]

Richard de Busli and Richard FitzTurgis provided land, pasture and wood for building. The monks’ next task was one of consolidation – they had to develop the site to provide for a self-sufficient community, and secure additional gifts to support their work and expansion.

Consolidation

The process of Roche’s foundation was followed by a period of consolidation. This was essentially two-fold. The monks had to develop the site to support a self-sufficient community, and secure further benefactions to finance building-work and expansion.

The monks initially lived in temporary wooden or mud huts that were erected before their arrival - an oratory, dormitory, guest-house and gate-house. Thereafter, the monks and lay-brothers would have laboured together to cultivate the land, to channel the water supply, and erect the remaining buildings and barns. The construction and maintenance of the buildings and fences required a considerable amount of timber. This was available from the surrounding woodland, and additional supplies were provided by Richard FitzTurgis, whose foundation charter of 1147 promised fifty cartloads of wood each year. This was clearly inadequate, for Richard de Busli later granted that the community might take sufficient timber from his wood at Maltby to complete their buildings. De Busli’s forrester was to supervise this operation, but if he twice refused the monks were simply to help themselves; the twelfth-century evidently had its fair share of temperamental workers. De Busli also acknowledged the community’s ongoing need for timber, and granted an additional eight waggon-loads of wood yearly for the upkeep of buildings and fences.

Rebuilding in stone began c. 1170, once the community had the necessary resources to support an operation of this kind. The nearby quarries at Roche provided a ready supply of high-quality stone that was durable, easy to work with and admired by contemporaries. The reconstruction was a lengthy process and it is likely that most of the claustral buildings were completed during Osmund’s abbacy, c. 1184-1213.

The acquisition of lands and possessions was necessary to support a self-sufficient community. This was actively pursued by Denis (c. 1159-71), the second abbot of Roche, and his successor Roger of Tickhill (c. 1171-9). Their achievement culminated in the papal confirmation of Roche’s possessions in 1186, which provides a detailed record of the nature and extent of their holdings at this time.

The rise

Roche was a moderately-sized house. It never had extensive holdings and did not found any daughter-houses; yet the abbey engaged in local and national affairs, and played an active role in the Order. The general fortunes of Roche mirror those of other houses: a time of growth and prosperity in the twelfth and first half of the thirteenth century was followed by a period of gradual decline until the Surrender of the abbey in 1538; this broad framework was punctured by highs and lows.

In Denis’ abbacy (c. 1159-71) Roche embarked upon a programme of expansion, to accumulate lands and possessions that would support a self-sufficient community. The abbey thrived throughout the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, save for a brief spell during Hugh of Wadworth’s abbacy (c.1179-84), when Roche suffered serious financial problems. Hugh’s ambition to expand the abbey’s holdings at Roxby landed the abbey in considerable debt, for he borrowed extensively from the Jews of York. Roche’s financial problems were soon solved by Hugh’s successor, Osmund (c. 1184-1213), one of the ablest and longest-serving abbots of Roche. Osmund significantly strengthened the community, bringing much of the building-work to completion, and securing papal and royal confirmation of the abbey’s possessions. Whilst Roche attracted gifts from outsiders it also drew local men as recruits. Abbots, Roger of Tickhill (c.1171-9) and Hugh de Wadworth (c.1179-84), as their names suggest, came from the neighbourhood. It is likely that a number of the choir monks were also from the locality, but with no record of their names, we can only speculate.

Roche was, clearly, held in high regard by its neighbours, who wanted to be involved with the community as benefactors or recruits. Several of Roche’s abbots were also esteemed, notably, Osmund, who was made proctor of Cardinal Stephen’s rents in England. This brought considerable financial benefit to the abbey, and drew in the significant sum of 400m pa. The monks of Roche were enriched to such an extent that contemporaries considered them wise men, lacking no temporal goods.

Monks of Roche were also influential in the context of the Order, and several were promoted to positions of authority in other Cistercian houses. Helias, ‘a man full of energy, fully practiced in dealing with outside affairs’ , became abbot of Kirkstall in 1209; Henry, who was prior of Roche, was elected abbot of Newminster, Northumberland, in 1216. It is not a coincidence that Roche, Newminster and Kirkstall were all affiliated to Fountains, for movement amongst houses was generally kept within the family line.

The Dissolution: the end of monastic life at Roche

The Dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII (1509-47), spelt the end of monasticism in England and Wales. The king, declaring himself the head of the Church in England, embarked on a thorough assessment of religious life in the country, allegedly to uncover and suppress dissolute conditions; it was, however, the need for money that underpinned these pious claims. Henry first ordered an evaluation of all the property pertaining to the church in England and Wales, a survey known as the Valor Ecclesiasticus. Thereafter, he instructed that each religious house should be visited and a report compiled of misconduct therein. The commissioners sent to the North of England were Doctors Layton and Legh, an infamous twosome renowned for their surprise tactics, their pompous manner and rigorous questioning.

The commissioners probably arrived at Roche near the end of 1535, and subjected the monks to a gruelling session of questioning, quizzing them about their food and clothing, the observance of the Rule of St Benedict, attendance at Divine Services, the administration of hospitality and charity, and if boys or women lay with them. The commissioners accused five monks of Roche of sodomy and one, John Robinson, of treason. John denied having spoken either in support of the pope or against the king, but was imprisoned at York 1535-6; he is likely to have been the monk from Roche whom Sir Francis Bigod saw in fetters at York Castle in 1536.(1) John was eventually released and was present at the surrender of his abbey in June 1538. On their departure Layton and Legh would have left the monks a set of injunctions and updated their notes with details of the visit.

The results of these first visitations, which were read out at parliament in 1536, instigated the first Act of Suppression, that ordered the surrender of those houses whose annual income was under £200. Roche was at this time valued at £222 and escaped suppression. The following year Layton and Legh visited the North once more and were particularly concerned this time to discover evidence of what they called superstition, namely, relics miracles and cults that, they claimed, duped the people to bring the abbeys financial gain. They accused the abbot and convent of Roche of having a pilgrimage to venerate an image of the crucified Christ.

The second wave of suppression followed, and commissioners were sent to obtain the ‘voluntary surrender’ of each house using persuasion, coercion, or if need be, force. Abbot Henry Cundall of Roche and his seventeen monks gathered in the chapter-house at Roche for the last time on 23 June 1538, and signed the surrender deed, sealing the fate of their abbey. The keys of Roche were then handed over to the commissioners and an exhaustive inventory was taken of all the monks’ possessions and livestock, which were then claimed as Crown property. Each monk was granted a pension, the precise amount depending on his standing within the abbey. Every member of the community also received a ‘reward’. Abbot Henry was given an additional £30, as well as his books, a quarter of the abbey’s plate, cattle, household items, a chalice, vestment and a portion of corn, which was to be taken at his discretion. The other monks each received half a year’s allowance, and every servant of the abbey was given half a year’s wages.

Following the dispersal of the monks, the abbey buildings were destroyed to ensure that the community would not attempt to reconvene. The monks’ goods were either plundered by the locals or sold - a number of vestments and furnishings were bought by local church wardens; it was said that the local carters used the monks’ service-books to patch up coverings on their wagons.The sheer speed with which the surrender and destruction of the abbey was effected was quite remarkable, and a later commentator showed incredulity that those who had only two days previously condoned the monks’ spiritual work could now pilfer their site.

The spoliation of Roche

A surviving account of the spoliation of Roche was written by a local priest, Michael Sherbrook, who was rector of Wickersley, some five miles west of Roche, from 1567-c. 1610. Sherbrook completed his account in the 1590s, but may actually have begun writing c. 1567. Sherbrook was himself a child at the time of the Dissolution, but recounts the memories of his father and uncle who witnessed at first-hand the spoliation of Roche. His vivid account highlights the speed and scale of devastation, as well as the extent of self-interest shown by monks and locals alike.

.... and all things of value were spoiled, plucked away or utterly defaced, those who cast the lead into fodders plucked up all the seats in the choir where the monks sat when they said service....

The monks, who had each been granted their cell, endeavoured to benefit in any way that they could, uncertain, no doubt, of what the future held. Indeed, Sherbrook’s uncle was approached by one of the monks whom he knew, and urged to buy the door of his cell for two pennies; he declined the offer having no use for such an item. Sherbrook’s father bought timber from the church and steeple, and when later questioned by his son as to why he had participated in this plundering replied that surely he should have profited from the spoils as others. Those who pilfered the site removed doors, service-books, windows and iron wall hooks; nothing was spared.

The official destruction of the abbey began with the church, the symbol of monastic life and the obvious target for the royal commissioners. They melted the lead from the roof, and a hole in the centre of the nave that was used as their furnace can still be seen; in fact, a quantity of lead ash was found in this cavity.

The timber choir stalls were ripped out and burned, tombs were broken and defaced; it was a scene of devastation and brutal destruction. After the church had been laid to waste the abbot’s lodgings were destroyed, and thereafter the dormitory, refectory, cloister and claustral building. Little within the walls was spared, although the ox-houses and swinecoates that lay beyond the walls were treated less brutally than the church itself. Not everything, however, was pilfered immediately, for Sherbrook notes that he himself saw eight or nine bells that remained in the bell-tower for over a year after the Dissolution.

The Roche Abbey Murder

The trial was held at the West Riding Assizes at Leeds Town Hall

James Sargisson (20) Labourer, was indicted for the wilful murder of John Cooper, at Laughton, near Rotherham, on the 9th of April 1864. The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Two men named George Denton and William Taylor were committed for trial by the magistrates on the charge, but the Grand Jury ignored the bill against the former, and the prosecution did not present an indictment against Taylor.

Mr. Overend, Q.C., Mr Maule, and Mr. Barker conducted the prosecution, the prisoner was defended by Mr. Waddy.

Mr. Overend stated the facts of the case to the jury. The deceased was a young man, twenty six years of age, by trade a gardener, and for some time he had been employed by Messrs. Fisher and Holmes of Handsworth, near Sheffield. His father and Mother lived at Stone, fourteen or fifteen miles from Handsworth, and on the 9th of April, which was a Saturday, he started from his employment, for the purpose of going home to see his friends. To go to Stone, he would have to pass through a village called Brook House, thence to Slade Hooton, along Abbey Lane, and a farm called Bullytree Hill. On the night in question he arrived at Brook House between nine and ten o'clock, and went to a public house there, kept by a person named Mottram, where there were also several other persons, named Richmond, Fletcher and Taylor, as well as the prisoner. At that time the prisoner was dressed in drab clothes. The deceased who was a tall man, was dressed in dark clothes, and had with him two bundles and a walking stick. After remaining for some time in the public house, something was said about the time, and the deceased, who had a silver watch, pulled it out, enabling the prisoner to see it, and, in reply to the remark of Mrs Mottram, said "Oh, yes, it is ten o'clock by Sheffield time." Having partaken of refreshment, the deceased went away, but whether before or after the prisoner was not clear. However that might be, almost immediately afterwards a boy, who was in the road near, noticed a man in light clothes, standing opposite the public house, apparently watching it. In a short time a man in dark clothes, carrying two bundles and a walking stick, walked down the road in the direction of Abbey lane, and almost instantly the man in light clothes, a smaller man than the other, was seen to follow in the same direction, and on the opposite side of the road, on which there was no footpath.

The deceased never reached the home of his parents, and the next morning a person going from Bullytree Hill farm, walking towards Brook House, found the body of the deceased in Abbey Lane. It was lying across the road, the head towards the road and the feet towards the hedge. The body was in a pool of blood, and close to his head was a large hedge stake, upon which were afterwards discovered marks of blood and human hair adhering. The bundles and walking stick were on the ground, his hat was off, his waistcoat open, and every pocket turned inside out and rifled except one, in which were found a knife, some tobacco, and one or two trifling articles. Assistance was obtained, the body was taken to a public house, and on a post mortem examination it was proved beyond all doubt that the man had come by his death by Violence. He Had received a severe blow on the top of his head, other blows at the back of his head, indeed, being almost in a state of pulp. He had received a black eye, and there were marks on his hands which would have been produced if he had been engaged in a struggle.

Nothing transpired to lead to the detection of the person who had been the cause of the deceased death for some days, but suspicion attached to the prisoner. He had been in the public house, and a man answering his description was seen walking in the direction in which a man answering the description of the deceased was known to have gone. Detective Officer Fisher had an interview with the prisoner, and to him made a statement (one of three or four) which was of considerable importance to the case. This statement was taken on the 11th of April and in it he said that he was at Mottram's beer house about 8 o'clock on the night of the murder, that he went there with William Taylor, Fletcher and Richmond, that they played dominoes until half past nine, when the deceased man came in and had a glass of ale, that he had a small bundle and a stick with him, that whilst they were talking Mrs Mottram asked the time, and the deceased took out his watch, a silver one, and said "It's ten minutes to ten" that about five minutes afterwards, he (prisoner) left the house, leaving the deceased there, that he went he went up to his own house, which was 100 yards from Mottrams, but did not go in, that he went back again past the public house, along the footpath leading to Laughton, and walked as far as Mr. Ibbotson's, that he stood here a short time and heard company in the house, that he returned home and found the family in bed, the time being twenty minutes to eleven, that he did not see anyone except one woman whom he did not know, and that he was wearing the same trousers, vest and slop he had on then (drab clothes).

The inquest of the body of the deceased was opened on the 12th of April, and adjourned to the 27th. Before the last named day a reward of £100 had been offered to any person who would give information as to who was the murderer, and at the adjourned inquest the prisoner was present, and offered to make a statement, which was taken down in writing. Substantially, that statement was the same as that originally given to Fisher, excepting that he said he met Jane Hawke, and stood talking to her. This statement was untrue, for Jane Hawke would be called and prove that she never spoke to the prisoner on that night. Up to that time there was nothing to lead to his apprehension, there was suspicion attaching to him, but nothing sound. On the 3rd of May he was taken in custody and then made another statement to Fisher. He said, "I am not guilty. I am as innocent as a child." After being in the police office some little time he said to Fisher, "I want to tell you how the deed was done. "Fisher told him that what he said might be used against him, and after a caution the prisoner proceeded - "When I came out of Mottrams I met George Denton." (This man was subsequently apprehended, but the Grand Jury ignored the bill) He asked me where I was going? and I said "home." Denton said "who is that who's just come out before you?" I told him it was a stranger. He said "Will you go on with me Jim?" I said "where to?" He said, "To Slade Hooton." We went together. He said nothing about our attacking Cooper until we got to Slade Hooton, and opposite the Beech House. He then said "I think I know yon man who came out before you." Cooper was then within hearing distance, and just before us. He also said "I think I know where he is going." He then said "I'll tell you what my intentions is if thou won't tell anyone." He said, "It isn't long since I came out of York Castle, and I don't care how soon I go again." He said "Now I'm going to murder him," meaning Cooper. At that time we were passing Beech's, Abbey Close.

He then passed in front of me, and I saw him pull a stake out of the fence. He then went up to the man and said "How are you, I think I know you." Cooper said "Do you think so" I then saw him strike Cooper with the stake and I saw him (deceased) fall in the hedge. He again struck him when down, and I never heard the deceased speak after the first blow. Denton said to me, "Jim, go and feel his pockets" I said "No George, I can't." He then replied "Then I will", and I saw Denton rifle the pockets and take his money and watch. He counted the money, and there was seven shillings and sixpence in silver. He said that was all he had got out of his pockets. Whilst taking the money, he said "Is he finished Jim?" If he's not I'll finish the ______" He then took up the stick again and struck him rapidly. He gave me the watch and told me to put it away for a day or two. I took it and wrapped it in a piece of paper and a handkerchief, and concealed it in our pig stye, and he kept the money. He said he was going to Tickhill for a few days, and would take the watch and sell it for me. The prisoner went on to say that before going up to the deceased, Denton put on a false beard, that they afterwards met, and Denton asked if the police suspected him, that there were some marks of blood on his trousers, and that he had washed the marks off on Sunday morning. Before this statement was made the prisoner was told that a pair of trousers, which had been washed and were spotted with blood, had been found under the bed he slept upon. He then made the statement admitting that the murder was committed in his presence. The only evidence against Denton was the prisoners statement, which was uncorroborated, was no evidence at all, but that statement was admissible against the prisoner himself. The police officers, in consequence of this statement, went to the pig stye alluded to and there found the watch, and it was a curious circumstance that it was wrapped in a portion of newspaper, the corresponding piece being found in the prisoners house. In the pig stye was also found a bunch of keys which had belonged to the deceased.

The verdict of the coroners jury was one of 'Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown'. The prisoner was taken before the magistrates, and there made a statement in some respects similar to the one he had made to Fisher, adding, however, some important details not previously given. Excepting these statements of the possession of the property of the deceased, there was very little against the prisoner, but it was for the jury to say whether under the circumstances they could doubt, whatever might be their opinion as to Denton’s guilt, that the prisoner was present at the time the deceased was murdered.

The following evidence was then adduced :

William Greaves, Stonemason, Roche Abbey , - On Sunday, the 10th April, I was proceeding from my own house to Slade Hooton, I had to go down Abbey Lane, and saw a man laid dead, covered in blood. That was at ten minutes to nine in the morning. The person was lying with his head to the road and his feet in the hedge. I went for assistance, and saw Samuel Beech. A policeman was sent for, and the body then removed.

Stephen Cooper - brother of the deceased. I am a labourer, living in Stone. On Sunday afternoon I went to Laughton, and there found the dead body of my brother in the St Ledger’s Arms. He was a gardener, and 26 years of age. He had been working for Messrs. Fisher and Holmes, at Handsworth. Handsworth is 13 or 14 miles from Stone. My brother was expected at home on Saturday night, but never came. In going from Handsworth to Stone you pass through Brook House, Slade Hooton, Abbey Lane and Holme. (Inspector Hookaday produced a watch and a bunch of keys) The watch was my brother’s. I had seen it on the 23rd of November, and I can swear to it by a flaw between the figures IV and V. The keys were also his, I have seen them in his possession many a time.

Mr. Wm. Latimer, Surgeon, South Anston. On the 13th April I made a post mortem examination of the deceased. On the right temple I found a contused wound about one and a half inch in length, on the left hand side of the head, from the temple towards the back part, the skin and muscles were beaten almost to a pulpy state, apparently caused by a repetition of blows from a blunt instrument, I also found a wound on the top of the head, about an inch in length, and a contused wound immediately below the left eye. On the right side of the neck I found an abrasion three inches in length, the right hand was much swollen, and the left hand and wrist were also much bruised and swollen. In the other respects the body was in a healthy condition. The skull was not fractured. The wounds were sufficient to cause death, that on the temple was more than sufficient. A blunt instrument would have caused them. (Serjt. Mc Veitty produced a long hedge stake) Such a hedge stake would be likely to produce the wounds - Cross examined:

I have seen a man named Denton. Cooper (deceased) was a tall man. The wound at the top of the head, I think , was inflicted when the man was down on the ground. The wound might have been caused by a kick. I have known the prisoner before, and his family also. As far as I know, he has never been before a magistrate in his life.

Sergeant Mc Veitty, one of the West Riding Constabulary, stationed at Laughton, deposed to finding the deceased body in Abbey Lane. There was a quantity of blood under his head, and also in the hedge bottom. His were bloody, his waistcoat was thrown open, and all his pockets were turned inside out except one. He examined that and found a pair of gloves, some tobacco, and a pruning knife. The hedge stake he found lay close to the deceased’s head.

Robert Mottram, Labourer, Brook House - My father keeps a beer house, I remember the evening of Saturday, April 9. I was at my father’s that night. James Sargisson, Wm. Taylor, George Richmond, and Wm. Fletcher were there when I went about half past eight. The deceased came in about nine. He had dark clothes on, and was carrying a bundle and something in paper. He was sober. He stayed till about ten, and I was in when he went out. I can’t remember whether Sargisson or Cooper went out first, they went out near together. Whilst they were all in the house, someone asked Cooper the time, and he said it was ten minutes to ten by Sheffield time. I did not see his watch.

George Richmond - Machinist, Laughton. I was at Mottram’s beer house on Saturday night, April 9. Whilst I was there, Sargisson and Taylor came in, and after them, Robert Mottram, and then the deceased. There were some talk about the time, and Cooper said it was twenty minutes to ten, and afterwards he said it was ten o’clock by Sheffield time. He drew his watch out, and Sargisson, who was standing on the hearth, could see it if he looked. I could not say whether Sargisson or the deceased went out first, they went out together about a minute past ten. It is about twenty minutes walk from the beer house to Abbey Lane.

Thos Fletcher, a boy thirteen years of age, said, I live with my parents in Laughton. On Saturday night, 9th April, I went with my brother to Brook House about half past nine. We went to Mottram’s beer house. I did not go inside. I saw a man standing in the middle of the road, opposite the house. He was dressed in drab clothes. I went to Mr Ardrons, and then saw a tall man dressed in dark clothes, he was going towards Hooton, with two bundles, one in each hand. I saw a man coming down the dyke side, opposite the footpath going towards Hooton, in the same direction as the dark man, he was like the man I saw at Mottrams.

Mr. Wm. W. Woodhead, deputy coroner for the West Riding, produced the deposition of the prisoner, taken at the inquest on the body of the deceased, on the 22nd of April, Cross examined:

At the time a reward had been offered for the discovery of the murder of Cooper, and a free pardon to anyone who did not strike the fatal blow.

Mr Waddy took the objection, upon the authority of King V Buswell, decided by the late Mr Justice Cresswell, that the deposition was not admissible. In that case it was held, that where Government had published a handbill offering a pardon to anyone of the offenders except the person who struck the blow, and a prisoner gave evidence as to what he knew, his deposition could not be given against him.

The Judge,

Under what circumstances was the confession made? He was in custody I presume. Your argument would exclude the evidence of everybody examined after the reward was offered, if he made a statement under any circumstances, provided it was shown that he had seen the handbill offering the reward.

MR. WADDY - It would exclude it as against himself.

The Judge - That would be a strange conclusion (to the witness) You cautioned the prisoner, and he was not in custody.

Witness - Yes.

The Judge - He was a witness as to the cause of the death of the deceased.

Mr. Waddy - The same objective was held to be good by Mr Justice Byles.

The Judge - But under what circumstances? Was that the case of a person giving evidence before the coroner when not in custody and cautioned as to what he said, or anything analogous to it? There was a time when this doctrine was carried to an extent that verged almost upon the extravagant. In later times things have been looked at in a more reasonable point of view, but still authority is authority, and if that has been held by a judge I should respect it, but I should like it to be 'all fours in principle'. His lordship added that the point was a important one and he would consult his brother Blackburn upon it. On returning into court the judge asked Mr Woodhead if the prisoner was cautioned.

Witness - Yes.

The Judge - What caution did you give him.?

Witness - I asked him if he wished to make a statement, and he said he did. I told him I was bound to take the statement upon oath, and I said to him, "You are not bound to answer questions which may incriminate you". He made the deposition, having received that caution.

The Judge said unless Mr Waddy could bring some case more distinct than those quoted, he was at present disposed to admit the deposition.

Mr Waddy handed to his lordship the report of the case decided by Mr Justice Cresswell.

The Judge - In that case it appeared as a fact that the prisoner was indeed by the offer of the reward to make the confession. I don't find anything of the kind here. The prisoner might and probably did see the placard, but there was a caution. It seems to me that the statement is admissible.

The deposition, is opened by the Learned Counsel for the prosecution, was then put in and read.

Jane Hawke contradicted the prisoners statement that he had been conversing with her on the night of the murder.

Detective Fisher - I apprehended the prisoner on the 3rd of May, at his fathers house. On the 11th of April I saw him and asked him where he had spent his time on the Saturday night of the murder. The reward was not offered then. When I apprehended the prisoner I read over the warrant charging him with the murder of the deceased. He said "I'm not guilty, I'm as innocent as a child." I sent him to the police station, and saw him there about 8 o'clock the same morning. He said he wished to tell me how the deed was done. I had told him that we had found his trousers concealed under the bed.

The Judge - When you told him that, he then said he wished to tell you how the deed was done.

Witness - He did.

The Judge - What did you say?

Witness - That whatever he chose to say I would take down in writing, and it might be given in evidence against him.

By Mr Waddy - I did not see one of the placards offering the reward in the office. There was one outside, and any person going in might see it. A great many of them had been placarded at Brook House, where Sargisson lived.

By The Judge - Before he made the statement nothing was said by either of us respecting the placard.

Mr Waddy objected to the reception of the statement but the judge admitted it on the ground that it was a spontaneous declaration, after the prisoner had been told that what he said might be used against him.

Witness then read the second statement, and continued - I read it over to the prisoner, and said if there was anything not correct he was to say, and I would strike it out. He said "Every word I have told you is correct." I afterwards went with Inspector Hookaday to the prisoners house and searched the pig stye, and saw Hookaday find the watch. There had been a large stone taken out of the wall, and the watch placed beside it. It was wrapped up in a piece of paper - Cross examined:

I know that Denton has been in York Castle, I believe for perjury.

Inspector Hookaday, of the West Riding Force, said: I was present when Fisher apprehended Sargisson. I searched the bed in which he was found between three and four o’clock. I found a pair of trousers, they were between the sacking and mattress. They were rolled up tightly and appeared to stick together, as though they had been rolled up wet. I mentioned to Sargisson that I had found his trousers under the bed and that they appeared bloody. I delivered the trousers to Dr Allen, of Sheffield, on the 9th. I showed the trousers to Sargisson on the following Saturday after I found them. He said 'These are trousers I wore on the day of the murder.' I heard Fisher read over the statement he had made, and Sargisson said it was all right. I found a watch in the wall of the pig stye. It was wrapped in a piece of newspaper and a handkerchief. I had to get on the trough to reach the hole where it was found. I found a piece of paper in Sargissons house, which appeared to be a portion of the paper in which the watch was wrapped. The pieces fit exactly. I found some keys also near the watch. I have shown the keys to Stephen Cooper, and fitted them to some locks belonging to John Cooper. Cross examined:

I remember those bills being posted. There was one put up in Mottrams beer house, and another in Ardrons. The latter house is 200 yards from Sargissons house, and the former 100. I don’t think Sargisson could have gone throught he village without seeing the bills. I have never suggested that these bills, offering a free pardon to anyone who had not actually struck the blow, had induced Sargisson to accuse Denton. I remember that when Sargisson said he and Denton had been together in Ardrons beer house, Denton broke out, saying, "Thou lying villain, I never was in your company, and never had anything to do with ‘ee."

James Allen, analytical chemist, Sheffield, said: I received a pair of trousers on the 9th of May. I applied tests, both microscopical and chemical, to ascertain the presence of blood on pieces cut from the trousers, and ascertained that there was animal blood. It was blood of one of the Mammalia, but I cannot say that it was human blood.

The CLERK OF ARRAIGNS. Then read the statement made by the prisoner before the magistrates at Rotherham, on the 16th of May last, after being duly cautioned by the Hon. And Rev. Wm. Howard, the chairman.

On the night of the 9th of April I was coming down Brookhouse with William Taylor. When we got to the low end of Mottram’s beer house, William Fletcher opened the front door of the beer house, and asked me if I would go and drink with them, and I replied 'No'. He asked me again. I said, 'Well, I don’t mind', which I did, and then Taylor comes in afterwards. I played a game of dominoes with George Richmond, and then one with Fletcher, and then Taylor, Fletcher, Richmond and Robert Mottram was playing, and I stood looking on when the deceased John Cooper came in. I can't say particular what time it was when he came in. Then I came out first before the deceased. Denton was stood again the brigg, opposite the beer house. He said, 'Hello, Jim, where are you going?' I says 'I'm going home'. He says 'Come here', which I did. I went to him. He says 'Who is there in Mottrams?' I says, 'There's Robert Mottram, George Richmond, William Fletcher, William Taylor'. I says, 'There's a young man, a stranger, I don't know him.' He said, 'What sort of a man is he?' I says, 'He is a tallish young man, well dressed.' He says, 'It's the same man I’ve seen go in a while since.' He then asked me if I'd go with him to Hooton. I says, 'Where to?' He says 'Will you go?' I says, '“Well I don’t care.' We went to Dentons house. He says 'Stop there whilst I put an old coat and cap on.' He came to the door and says. 'Be going on, and I'll overtake thee Jim', and I went on gainer to the Dyke than the causeway. I daresay he overtook me about sixty yards, as ga'n I can tell you, below Mr. Ardrons farthest house. We went on together till we got to Wm Roddis's house. He whispered low, and said, 'See thee, I can shine a light through that shut.' When we got past Samuel Beech's he got hold of me by the right shoulder with his left hand. He says 'Now Jim', he says, 'Will thou tell anybody what I am going to do?' I says 'No'. He says, 'Thou sure thou won’t?' At the same time he says so, he catched me by the left shoulder, and shaked me. He said, 'I'll tell thee what I'm going to do', he said 'It’s not long since I came out of York, and I don’t care a b______ how soon I go again' He says, 'I’m going to murder yon man.' He says, 'I think I know him, and know where he’s come from.' And I says 'What?' He said 'I’m going to murder yon man' again. Now he says 'Don’t thee split a word,' He says, 'I’ll give thee half of what he’s got.'

The Dyke He pulled out of his pocket a false beard then, and put it on, and says 'Come on.' We went down the road, he kept hold of my slop. When we got even about Samuel Beech's, Abbey-gate, he passed before me a bit. We went about 100 yards, I dare say, then, and John Cooper was just before us. Then he got hold of a stake in Samuel Beech’s hedge, and pulled it from a railing, and then went before me opposite an Ash tree in Mr Hewards hedge. He spoke to the deceased 'Hello', he says, 'How are you? I think I know you', and the deceased said 'Do you', and then he held the stake with both hands and knocked the deceased down, and I never heard him speak again not from first to last. He said, 'Jim, come and feel in his pocket' I says 'No George I can't.' He says, 'I will then.' He pulled out his watch and some keys and some money, and put them in his coat pocket. Then he says, 'Is he finished Jim' I says, 'I don't know. He says 'Then I'll finish the b_____'. He hit the man several more blows, when he struggled. Then he says, 'Come on Jim' and he laid the stake where the deceased was, and he says 'Come on then.' He kept his false beard on right ways till he got back. He whispered to me and says 'Dont say anything for fear any body should hear us.' which I didn't. We came on the same road right away until we got nearly to Denton's own house again. He pulled the money out of his pocket, and says, 'there's 7s. 6d.' He had some more with it and said that was his own, but I don't know it was or not. Then he gave me the watch and keys. He says, 'Thee take them Jim, and hiddy them a day or two, out of sight.' He says 'I am going to Tickhill, and I'll take the watch and get shut of it.' I says, 'Where must I put it?' He says, 'Put it in the pig-cote and the keys too. He says, 'My trousers are very bloody' I'll either burn them or bury them.' He says, 'I think thine isn't.' 'Now' he says, 'Jim, whatever thou does don't split a word to nobody.' He says, 'No one's seen us do it, and they'll never find us out,' and he says, 'Thee go tomorrow and look at the place where it was done with other people.' Which I did do. I will not be sure whether I saw him in the morning, at eight o'clock, following at their door or not rightly, then I saw him again during the week, but I cannot say the day.

After the first inquest he says, 'How did you go on on Tuesday?' that was at one inquest - and he asked me what I said at the inquest, and I told him what I said at the policemans, I did not go to the first inquest, I was kept at the policemans, and he says 'Well done Jim' Then I saw him at Mr. Ardrons. That was on Tuesday I think. I cant say right if it was Monday or Tuesday. It was Tuesday after the first inquest. It was the day Mr. Britain came. John Ardron and him was then in the garden together at noon, when we left to go to our dinners. Denton says to me, 'Don't thou know whether the policeman suspects me or not? Has't 'ee heard ought?' and I says I don't know. Then I told him what Mr. Ardron had been saying to me. Mr. Ardron says to me, 'Jim if thou knows something about this here thou must split - tell somebody.' And Denton says 'Ok be d ...., don't thee spill a word.' He says 'Nobody'll ever find us out'. I saw him again on the 23rd, he brought me some spice cake down. I was in Mr. Ardrons stable yoking the mare ready for working. He brought me the spice cake into the stable. Willy Lloyd was in the stable at the time. He called me to the gate again the road side, away from the lad. 'Now' he says, 'Jim whatever company me and thee go into, never thee look no different.' He says 'I'll see thee again tomorrow', that was on Sunday the 24th when I saw him in his garden, He called me to go to him when I was coming down the street. He says, ;You have to up again on Wednesday I understand.' I says 'They suspect me and William Taylor very hard'. He says 'Mind, whatever thou does, don't let a word slip, and they'll never find us out.' He told me if I see'd a chance to put it upon Bill Taylor, I said, 'No, I couldn't put it on a man I know is innocent.' He said, 'Well thou must tell them some sort of tale'. I saw him no more after the second inquest. That was all that ever passed. If I had never seen him that night I should never have been here, I am sorry to say, I've been like a fool to myself and a friend to him for keeping it in, that's certain. That is the man, and he knows it.'

Mr. Waddy then addressed the jury for the defense. He said that the theory on which he based the defence was no invention of his own; he based it upon the defence which the prisoner himself had made from beginning to end. He did not intend to deny that the prisoner was present at the murder, but he submitted that supposing it to be true that this man was there at that time, not having gone there with the intention of joining in that murder, not thinking perhaps, that any murder was about to take place, he was not a principal in the crime, even in the second degree. There must be participation in the act: there must have been common intent, a common purpose before the prisoner could be an accessory to the act. It might have been that he had done nothing to prevent the murder; it might be that the property of the murdered man was found in his possession; that would be good evidence if the prisoner was charged with robbery, but not sufficient to convict him of murder. The word 'confessions' was improperly used when applied to the statement made by the prisoner, regarding the guilt of another person; but beyond these statements there was no other evidence against him. The prosecution have not dared to put the only man in the box who could have stated whether he saw the prisoner on the night of the murder. Probably if Denton had been placed in the box, he would have been subjected to a tolerably searching examination, but he ought to have been called to deny, if he could the truth of the statements made by the prisoner. In making these statements, the prisoner was influenced by the placard offering a reward of £100 and a free pardon to the person who did not actually strike the blow,, but directly the man came forward and gave his evidence, the prosecutor turned round and wanted to make use against him of testimony he had not made against himself, but by himself against another person. The true issue was between Denton and the prisoner and it was for the jury to judge from the evidence they had heard which of the 2 men was most to be relied upon. It was in evidence that the prisoner had borne a good character, while it appeared that it was not long since Denton was confined in York Castle on a charge of perjury. After commenting on the statements made by the prisoner and contending that it was consistent with all the circumstances that had been brought out in evidence, the Learned Counsel concluded by saying that he left the prisoner in the hands of the jury. If they were convinced upon this testimony that the prisoner really murdered John Cooper, they would convict him. On the other hand, if they were not fully satisfied that he was guilty, and if they believed the statements he had made, they would acquit the prisoner at the bar.

Summing up

His Lordship in summing up commented at considerable length on the prisoners statement. He said the jury had the statement made by the prisoner himself as to the part he took on the night of the murder. That that was not a mere dream was proved by the fact that where he said the property would be found it was found. He stated that the knees of his trousers were bloody and his trousers were found concealed in a manner they had heard described with blood on the knees. This was the whole evidence in the case, but the jury would probably consider whether after according to the prisoners own statement, the communication by Denton - (if this man Denton really had anything to do with it, for which they only had the prisoners word) - of his intention to murder Cooper, he continued with him, was present when the blow was struck, whether he did it himself or not, and did not take one single step to prevent it, and took the plunder - whether he could now ask the jury, by his Learned Counsel, to believe that he did not participate in the murder. If the jury could bring themselves to that conclusion, it would be their duty to find the prisoner not guilty; but if this evidence satisfied them that the prisoner did take a part - either was the person who committed the murder, or assisted in it, if he was not the only person, they would find a verdict of guilty.

The jury having consulted for some short time in their box, their Foreman intimated that they wished to retire.

His LORDSHIP - If you at any time wish me to read over portions of the evidence to you, I shall be most happy to do it.

The FOREMAN - There is one qestion we wish to ask your Lordship. Supposing the prisoner's statement to be true, and that he was only present at the murder, would he be guilty providing he did not strike the actual blow?

His Lordship - He would be guilty if he was present and assisting at the murder.

The FOREMAN - Even though he did not strike the blow?

His LORDSHIP - Even though he did not strike the blow. Of course you must be convinced that he was consenting, aiding and assisting by his presence.

The jury after another brief consultation found the prisoner GUILTY.

His LORDSHIP then passed the sentence of death. He said:

James Sargisson, you have been convicted, upon what seems to me to be very clear evidence, of the murder of John Cooper - a murder committed under circumstances as cruel and cowardly as one can conceive, because there can be no doubt that you, either alone or in company with some one else - and I have no right even to suggest there was anyone with you, because I have no evidence before me that there was anyone, except your own statement, which is evidence against no one else - that you, either alone or in company, assaulted that unfortunate young man and took his life. It remains for me to perform the duty which the law imposes upon me of pronouncing on you its sentence. That sentence is that you be taken from the place where you are now to the place from whence you came, and from thence to the place of public execution, where you shall hang by the neck till you are dead; and that your body be buried within the precincts of the prison where you shall last be confined; and may the Lord have mercy upon your soul.

The prisoner burst into tears on hearing the sentence pronounced and was removed exclaiming 'I am as innocent as a child'.

Mr. Blackburn asked his Lordship to order the discharge of George Denton, against whom the jury had found no true bill.

His LORDSHIP said that there was no charge against Denton and therefore he could be discharged.

An unusually long period of time passed between the conviction, and carrying out the sentence, no effort to save Sargisson was made. No hope of pardon or respite was held out by any officials of the gaol.

While in Armley Gaol, Sargisson was visited by his father and a Mr. Foster, a former employer, of Laughton-en-le-Morthen. Mr. Foster asked if his denial of having struck the blow was true, he did not either kick the deceased or take some other part in the infliction of the violence. He asserted that he had not struck or kicked, or in any way inflicted injury on Cooper. He made a similar statement when talking with the Bishop of Ripon.

Of Denton, he said, 'If I could say anything that could free him from suspicion, I would, but he is guilty, he struck the blow'.

The Execution 11th September, 1864

The West Riding Assizes was moved to Leeds and for the first time in living memory the scaffold was erected there. The novelty brought large crowds. There were about 200 police present. The executioner, Mr. Askern, arrived from Doncaster on Friday afternoon and remained in the prison during the night. (Askern, apparently had once worked on the same farm as Sargisson.) The scaffold was nine feet high from the ground, the front screened with a black cloth, which concealed Sargisson from the waist down. About 6 oclock the governor visited Sargisson and found him reading The Bible. He was taken to the pinnioning room and appeared so weak, he was given brandy. As he was placed upon the drop, he cried out 'Lord have mercy upon me.' The executioner placed a white cap over Sargissons head, and adjusted the rope. Sargisson shouted out 'Are you happy lad' referring to Denton.

Instantly with a solemn thud amidst the hush of the multitude, the drop fell, and his body was hidden from the view of the crowd.

A few minutes before the hour as the crowds began to disperse, the upper portion of the screen was removed - to prove that the sentence of law had been carried out.

The Mob

The road leading to the gaol was like a fair, with stalls for the sale of sandwiches pigs trotters, sweet stuff and fruits.

The roofs of houses, mills, walls and even lamp posts were thronged with those anxious to witness the execution.

A large platform situated to the right of the scaffold was crammed with morbid gazers who had paid half a crown.

The mob, at four o'clock, and at the time of execution, was said to be around 100,000. When the bell tolled, the cry of 'Hats Off' was raised by the multitude.

After the execution the crowds rapidly dispersed, although some remained to witness the cutting down of the body at ten o'clock.