Hannah PRATLEY 1832 - ?

Summary

Parents

Dates

  • Baptised: 19 Feb 1832, Great Rissington, Gloucestershire, England

Partnerships

Sources

Parish Register Baptisms

19/02/1832 Great Rissington, Gloucestershire, England Hannah PRATLEY Thomas Anne Great Rissington Lab  


1841 UK Census

Great Rissington, Gloucestershire, England
(HO107/366/06 07/15)
Thomas PRATLEY 48   Fellmonger n
Rose PRATLEY   58   y
William PRATLEY 24   Ag lab y
Hannah[sic] PRATLEY   15   y
Jane[sic] PRATLEY   9   y
Thomas PRATLEY 7     y


1851 UK Census

Burford, Oxfordshire, England
Upton (HO107/1731 730/27)
Head: William WALLER, Proprietor of Land & co.
Henry ILES Serv Unm 35 Footman Midd. Paddington  
Elizabeth COOK Serv Unm 30 Cook Gloucsh Bibury  
Hannah PRATLEY Serv Unm 19 Housemaid Gloucsh, Gt Rissington  


Newspaper Articles

Jackson's Oxfordshire Journal
25 Jun 1853 [p.3, col.d]

OXFORD.

SATURDAY, June 25.

________

Commitments to the County Gaol.- For the Assizes: Hannah Pratley, for the wilful murder of a new-born male child at Burford.

Hannah PRATLEY


Newspaper Articles

Jackson's Oxfordshire Journal
25 Jun 1853 [p.3, col.d]

BURFORD.

MURDER AND SUICIDE.

Considerable excitement prevailed in this town and neighbourhood on Tuesday the 14th inst., in consequence of the discovery of a newly-born male child, under very suspicious circumstances, and the subsequent suicide of the reputed father of the child. An inquest was held on the following Friday, at the Bear Inn, Burford, by James Westell, Esq., coroner of this district, when the following facts relating to the two events appeared in evidence:-

Mr. Thos. Cheatle, of Burford, surgeon, deposed that on Tuesday the 14th inst., about 9 o'clock, he was sent for by Mr. Waller, of Upton and Signet, near Burford, to see his housemaid, Hannah Pratley, who was taken ill, and who it was believed had that morning given birth to a child. Witness found her in her bed room, with her mistress and fellow servant; she was sitting on her bed, quite dressed, and in answer to his inquiries she admitted that she had had a mis-carriage about half-past seven that morning. He endeavoured to get further information from her, but could not succeed, in consequence of which he told her that he would give her a quarter of an hour, and if in that time she did not give the information he required, he should order her into custody. She then said that if witness and her mistress would leave the room, she would inform her fellow servant, Hester Matthews, all about it. They then left the room, and about a quarter of an hour afterwards Hester Matthews came down, and took him up some steps near the wood-house, where he found a slop-pail, with a lid apparently on, but not fitted close down; on taking off the lid he found a living child, with a stifled cry, and Hester Matthews said that that she thought she had heard the child cry. The child was full grown and perfect, and appeared to be capable of sustaining life. The child was afterwards dressed, and properly attended to, but it died about two o'clock in the afternoon of the same day. There were no marks of violence, except the appearance of a ligature having been applied round the neck with considerable pressure. He attributed the death of the child to the consequences of neglect and direction at the period of its birth, and considered that the exposure of a body of a new-born child for two hours would certainly produce death from the effect of cold.

Hester Matthews corroborated the statement of the previous witness, and said that when she discovered the pail, as directed by Hannah Pratley, the child was wrapped up in a cloth, and was alive and struggling. She stated that she was awoke by Pratley passing through her bed room that morning between four and five o'clock, but she did not notice anything particular about her. Pratley got up at her usual time, and did her work as usual. Witness stated that Henry Iles, a married man, who had a family, lived and slept in the house; that he left the house that morning about eight o'clock, before the child was found, and went to the farm; he returned about six o'clock in the evening, when he was told of what had occurred, and became agitated. His wife came to see him about seven o'clock, and some conversation took place with her and him about Hannah Pratley having had a child. She asked witness if she suspected her husband; witness said, "you had better ask him." Witness heard her say that she hoped it was not his, and asked him whether he could stand before God and her, and say that he had had no connexion with Hannah Pratley? He answered "yes, to be sure I can; are you jealous of me?" She replied "no, and never was." Iles had his supper, and went to bed about eleven o'clock, and was never seen again alive. In the morning the house was opened at the usual time, and Iles could not be found, but after searching the house, he was discovered in the garret hanging from a beam by a cord, and quite dead.

Louisa Matthews, wife of Thomas Matthews, a carrier, stated that she was sent for on the 14th inst. To take charge of a new-born child at Mr. Waller's; it was then alive, and appeared a well-grown child, but had became exhausted by cold. There was a mark round its neck, which Hannah Pratley said was done in helping herself.

Sarah Taylor, landlady of the Mermaid public house, to which place Hannah Pratley had been removed, stated that Hannah Pratley told her, in the presence of her sister, Mrs. Avery, and in an answer to a question put to her by witness, that Iles was the father of the child. She has since been told that Iles has destroyed himself, and is deeply distressed. She talks of destroying herself and says "where he is gone to, she will go."

Mr. Waller stated that Hannah Pratley had lived in his service about twelve months, and that Iles had also lived with him some time. He had seen Iles during the day on Tuesday, and in the evening, but he did not appear depressed in spirits, nor did witness say any thing to him about what had happened; witness spoke to him on other matters, and he appeared very comfortable. The next morning witness rose about seven o'clock, and as Iles could not be found, the house was searched, when he was found in a garret, suspended by a rope from a beam, and quite dead. The body, which was then warm, was cut down, and Mr. Cheatle, the surgeon, was sent for. Witness did not know of any thing, apart from this act, to indicate any aberration of intellect in Iles, nor was he aware that any other person did.

Mr. Cheatle stated that on the Wednesday morning he was summoned to Mr. Waller's, when he found the deceased, Henry Iles, lying on a bed in the garret, with the mark of a cord, round his neck. The body was warm, but respiration and circulation had ceased. Witness applied remedies, but without success, and had no doubt that death was caused by hanging. Witness had known the deceased for many years, but never saw any indications of aberration of intellect.

The Jury returned, in the case of the child, a verdict of "Wilful Murder against the mother Hannah Pratley."- In the case of Henry Iles, they returned a verdict of "Felo de se."

The Coroner signed warrants for the commital of Hannah Pratley, and for the burial of the body of Henry Iles in the parish church yard, within 24 hours, between the hours of nine and two at night, privately, and without any religious burial service.- The witnesses were then bound over to give evidence on the trial of Hannah Pratley.

Hannah PRATLEY


Newspaper Articles

Jackson's Oxfordshire Journal
16 Jul 1853 [p.3, col.d]

OXFORD.

SATURDAY, July 9.

Oxfordshire Summer Assizes.

Hannah Pratley (21), charged with the wilful murder of a new-born male child at Burford.

Hannah PRATLEY


Newspaper Articles

Jackson's Oxfordshire Journal
16 Jul 1853 [p.3, col.e]

OXFORD.

SATURDAY, July 16.

_________

tuesday.

Mr. Justice Coleridge took his seat in the Crown court at nine o'clock this morning.

alleged child murder at burford.

Hannah Pratley was charged with the wilful murder of a new-born male child at Burford, on the 14th of June last.- Mr. Cripps conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Cook, the defence.

Mr. Cripps briefly stated that the facts of the case, as given in evidence, of which the following are the principal portions:-

Wm. Waller, of Burford, said that the prisoner lived in his service, and lived there about a year and a quarter.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cooke.- During the time she was in his employ she conducted very properly. A man servant, named Iles, lived with him at that time; he was a married man but slept in the house; he had lived with him eight or nine years; he saw him on the evening of the 14th of June, after prayers; he appeared cheerful, and not different to his usual manner. The next morning he was found dead in an attic, having committed suicide.

Thomas Cheatle, surgeon of Burford-On the 14th of June I was called to the house of Mr. Waller, and found the prisoner, about nine in the morning, sitting on her bed, dressed. Ester Matthews was in the room at the time, cleaning the floor. I asked the prisoner what was the matter with her? When she said that she had had a mis-carriage. I asked her what she had done with it, but she made no reply, and I said to her mistress that it would be better to give her a little time to consider, and I told the prisoner that we would give her a quarter of an hour, and after that time, if she did not tell, I should give her into custody. She said if we would retire, she would tell her fellow servant. We left, and shortly afterwards Esther Matthews came down and took us up some steps leading to the wood-house, and in the cheese room, over the wood-house, I found a slop-pail, in which was a male child alive; it gave a stifled cry. I had the child taken to the prisoner and put on the bed; the prisoner was sitting by the window. I saw the child again at eleven o'clock, and at two, when it died. I examined the child both before and after its death; there was a mark of a ligature round its neck, but that might be owing to two causes, I attribute the death of the child to want of care after its birth. The exposure of a child, so soon after its birth, would doubtless occasion its death. When I first saw the child it was quite cold, but, by proper care, a re-action ensued, and it became warmer. As the prisoner was confined at half-past seven, it was a matter of surprise to me that the child lived so long.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cooke- when I saw the child at two o'clock it was at the Mermaid public house, to which place the prisoner, as well as the child, had been removed. The mark round the neck might be owing to circumstances which often occur even where the greatest medical skill is employed. Circulation may be suspended by such causes, which would lead to the belief that the child was still-born, I should imagine that the pail containing the child must have been taken up the steps to the cheese room by some one else than the prisoner, who would be too weak to take it there herself.

By a Juror- Animation might be suspended by the causes already referred to for an hour.

Esther Matthews- I was cook in Mr. Waller's family, at Burford. My bed room adjoined the prisoner's and she had to pass through mine to get to her own. Before the 14th of June, her appearance created suspicions in my mind that she was in the family say, and I taxed her with it, but she denied it; this was about a fortnight before the 14th of June; she did her work, as usual, up to that day; on that night she told me she had taken medicine; in the course of the night, ot rather about five in the morning, she passed through my room, and returned in a quarter of an hour and went to bed; she called me at six o'clock, and asked me if I had heard her go through her room, and I said "yes;" she got up, and went about her work as usual. I saw her again, about half-past seven, sitting on her bed; she appeared to be very ill, and told me she had a mis-carriage. I asked her what she had done with it? She said she had put it away. I said I hoped it was nothing worse, but she made no reply. I asked her if she was able to come down? She said "yes," and did so. Soon after, her mistress sent her up stairs again. I went up also, and observed certain marks about my own and the prisoner's room. I remained with the prisoner until Mr. Cheatle came. I asked her where it had happened? She said in her own room, about half-past seven. She did not say any thing more about it until Mr. Cheatle came, when she told me she had carried it away to the wood-house. She told me to try and find it, but could not tell exactly where it was. I went to the wood-house, and up some steps to the cheese room, where I found a pail, which I brought down to the landing. I took the lid off, and saw something moving. I think it was in a cloth, but am not sure. I then went and told Mr. Cheatle.

Cross-examined- I came down stairs about six o'clock that morning. Iles was down stairs. When I asked Pratley if the child was alive, she said "no, it was dead." I saw afterwards, in the prisoner's box, a small cap and some swathes.

Louisa Matthews- I went to take charge of a child at Mr. Waller's, and was with Hannah Pratley. There was a mark round the child's neck, which she said was caused by her helping herself.

Sarah Taylor, examined by Mr. Cooke, said- Hannah Pratley was brought on the 14th of June, to my house, the Mermaid public-house, and afterwards the baby was brought to her; she seemed faint, and took no notice of it, but afterwards she appeared kind to it. When I told her that the child was dying, she became distressed, and said she hoped it would live. I was forbidden to tell her that Iles had destroyed himself, as she was in such a weak and distressed state.

Mr. Cooke addressed the Court on behalf of the prisoner, and stated that the case was narrowed to two points, namely, whether the prisoner had committed murder, or been guilty of such gross neglect as to justify a verdict of manslaughter. With regard to the charge of murder, it was proved that there were marks of violence on the body of the child, nor any circumstance to justify that charge. Had she been guilty of a neglect of duty as a mother towards this child, she might be convicted of manslaughter, but there was nothing to justify that suspicion, and no evidence to support such a charge. With respect to concealment, if the body had been found dead, she must have been found guilty of concealment, but the child was found alive, and therefore, according to the Act, that charge did not hold good. It was perfectly true that, owing to the causes stated by the medical man, she believed the child to be still-born, and had put it away to hide her shame, but a re-action had taken place, and the child was found alive and lived a certain time. His own impression was, that she had given the pail to Iles to deal with it, as both thought, as a thing devoid of life. As a further proof that she had no intention of concealing the birth of the child, there was evidence to show that she had made preparations for it. In conclusion, he urged that where the facts were consistent with guilt and innocence, it was the duty of the Jury to give the balance in favor of the prisoner.

The Judge, in summing up, observed that all charges of murder admitted of being reduced to manslaughter, when there was wanting the ingredient to constitute murder, namely, the intention to commit the act. In this case the child was beyond all doubt, born alive, and through her, or by some act with her, it was put in a cold situation, and came to its death by exposure. If the exposure were by the woman, who knew it to be alive, and that exposure occasioned death, she would be guilty of manslaughter. If he (the Judge) wilfully occasioned the death of a person, he would be guilty of murder, but he should not be guilty to the same extent if by any wrongful act, or imprudence, or omitting to do something, the person came to his end; then he should be guilty of manslaughter. If the mother knowing that she had given birth to a live child, put it in a slop-pail, and thereby it came to an end, she would be guilty of very wrong conduct, for it was her duty to do all she could for the preservation of the infant; that was on the supposition, of course, that the woman knew that the child was born alive, for when, through ignorance or accident, she believed it to be dead, it was very different. The material fact was whether the prisoner was aware that the child was alive, because if so, although it might be a dying child, it would at least make her guilty of manslaughter. Every one must feel for the prisoner, and if he (the Judge) and the Jury were sitting in the body of the Court as spectators, they might yield to feelings of indulgence towards her, but they must not in their capacity yield to those feelings, but were sworn to do justice, and to give to every prisoner, and to every circumstance, a perfectly candid and even a merciful interpretation.

The Jury deliberated a short time, when the Foreman inquired of the Judge if they could find the prisoner guilty of the concealment of the birth of the child?

His Lordship told them that they could not.

The Jury again deliberated a few minutes, and then pronounced a verdict of acquittal.

His Lordship then ordered the two women Eliza Gee and Mary Ann Buckingham, who had been convicted the day before of the concealment of the birth of their two children, to be placed at the bar to receive sentence. Hannah Pratley remaining there also. His Lordship, addressing them, said Eliza Gee, Mary Ann Buckingham, and Hannah Pratley, the first two of you have been convicted of having endeavoured to conceal the birth of children born of you, by secretly disposing of the bodies. Hannah Pratley, you have, under the circumstances, been very properly acquitted of the charge of making away with your child, but you are all alike in the real guilt that, two of you have to answer for. All of you have been induced by artful and selfish men, for their own lustful gratification, to depart from the rule of chastity, from which, when a woman once departs, she becomes as nothing worth. You have been left by your seducers in the hour of distress and danger, to meet the consequence of your guilt, and you had not the courage to meet it, nor the natural kindness towards your offspring to take the necessary and proper precautions for their preservation. I am sorry to say that this crime is increasing in this country, and I repeat what I said in my charge to the Grand Jury yesterday, that it is my rule, when such cases are clearly made out, to endeavour, by some severity of punishment, to arrest the course of this most mischievous conduct. Nobody knows, or would believe, what a vast number of innocent infants are hurried out of existence just as they have entered the world, by the carelessness and hard-heartedness of their mothers. They are bound by every tie to protect, to nurse, and cherish them; but it is too often found that, in order to shelter themselves and their guilty partners from the consequences of their misconduct, they not only neglect this duty, but stifle all their natural feelings, and put an end to the existence of their offspring. It is, indeed, a painful thing to administer justice on respectable young women, who might have done better things, and who, I truly hope, will yet do so, but it is necessary to make an example in order to deter others.

Hannah PRATLEY


GRO Marriage Index

4Q 1856 PRATLEY Hannah Cheltenham   blank


Parish Register Marriages

14/10/1856St Mary, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, England
  George TAYLOR X FA b Lab 4 Mount Pleasant Thomas T. Lab
  Hannah PRATLEY   FA sp -- 4 Trinity Terrace Thomas P. Fell Monger
 Witnesses: James Radbourne, Mary Ann Merchant


Photographs

14/10/1856 George and Hannah Taylor on their wedding day. The Taylors were farm labourers, so it's a mystery how they could afford the photo (or the clothes)! George TAYLOR, Hannah PRATLEY


Newspaper Articles

Cheltenham Chronicle
21 Oct 1856 [p.3, col.g]

MARRIED.

Oct. 14, at St Mary's Church, Mr. George Taylor, to Miss Hannah Pratley.

[No further coverage of marriage in the paper]

George TAYLOR, Hannah PRATLEY


Extra Notes

1861 Census, Great Rissington, Gloucestershire (RG9/1789/95/28)

George TAYLORHeadMar29CarterGloucsre Sherborne
HannahWifeMar29  Do Great Rissington
ClaraDau 3  Do Do
AnnDo 1  Do Do

Re: The bible given to Hannah by Isabella D. Reynolds:
1851 Census, Burford [Sheep Street] (HO107/1731 787/29) - Thomas R. REYNOLDS, 52, Brewer and Isabella, 43. Servants Elizabeth MERCHANT and Joseph BURNSDON. With them is son Thomas H., 21, who was a very religious man, as referred to in http://www.stempublishing.com/hymns/biographies/reynolds.html and http://www.mybrethren.org/bios/frambios.htm.
1861 Census, Burford [Sheep Str.] (RG9/908 46/17) - Isabella S. Reynolds, 53, Proprietor of Houses. Servants Martha ELBRO and Caroline BRADRICK.