Norton sub Hamdon

Local History Society

All the following extracts were taken from the ‘Pulman’s Weekly News & Advertiser’.

Charles Osborne of Norton aged 11 was summoned for cruelly ill-treating a sheep of Norton the property of Mr. Templeton. Mr. Whitehead of Taunton prosecuted. Robert Best aged 9 said that about a fortnight ago he saw Osborne drive a sheep down across a field and pushed it into some water. Eliza Best called to him and he ran away. Witness tried to pull it out but couldn’t, the sheep died in the water. The Reverend Mr. Blomfield said that the defendant was a very bad boy and his father and mother had no control over him. He was sent to an industrial school for five years.

The child Osborne who on Wednesday was sentenced to five years in a reformatory for alleged cruelty to a sheep escaped from Yeovil Union that night and was captured here (Norton sub Hamdon) and returned to the union whence he escaped a second time and had not been found up ‘til Saturday night. Strong feeling is manifested throughout the neighbourhood at the severity of the sentence for a trivial offence by one so young.

The master reported that the boy named Charles Osborne was brought to the house by order of the County Magistrates to be kept there until his removal to a reformatory where he was ordered to be incarcerated for five years, particulars of the case appeared in our last impression. The boy was placed with the children in the workhouse, having had his dinner he scaled the walls and made off but was brought back to the Union by a policeman on the following morning. The boy was then placed in the tramps ward. He seemed to have pulled down the water pipe and drew out the holdfast with which he picked he lock of the door and got clean away. He returned to his home at Norton, and the Reverend Blomfield wrote to the master stating that the father would undertake to give up the boy when the time arrived for his removal to the reformatory. Mr. Trask said that opinion had been expressed that the sentence was too severe. But the people of Norton considered that the boy deserved his punishment.

Charles Osborne arrived at the Bath Industrial Home on Tuesday 14^th December 1875. He escaped and walked on the Great Western railway towards Salisbury. He discovered his mistake and walked down the South Western railway Line to Yeovil. He was overtaken by a resident of Norton at Preston on Friday night and taken home footsore and almost starved. The police are looking for him.

Tuesday evening he slept at Keynsham Union approximately six miles out of Bath, half way to Bristol. Next morning he went to Bristol and took the train to Yeovil. He arrived in the afternoon.

He, Mr. Mitchell, wished to refer to the case of the little boy Osborne, about whom they had all heard. A ‘coathed’ sheep was kept in a field at Norton in consequence of the dogs having more meat than they ought. A ‘coathed’ sheep meant a consumptive sheep, the meat of which labourers often ate. Before the time came for the sheep to be killed the boy Osborne chased it and it ran into a brook and was drowned. The farmer – the owner of the sheep – said, "I’ll forgive the boy." But the boy was taken before the magistrates at Yeovil. The magistrates were eager to overlook the complaint, but the boy’s spiritual adviser was present and actually said, "I cannot do anything with him." The Rev. gentleman had from £400 to £500 a year out of the sinews and muscles of the labourers and yet he said that he could do nothing with the boy, and advised the magistrates to send him for two months to the treadmill and to transport him for four or five years to an industrial school. He (Mr. Mitchell) believed that Mr. George Harbin was one of the best and most kind-hearted magistrates in the county of Somerset, but he was only one upon the bench. The consequence was the little boy was ordered to be locked up for four or five years. The boy was taken away to Bath by the policeman – of whom he did not complain, for the police merely did their duty. After the boy had some ‘grub’ he was put to wash a carriage. But the boy’s home-love was so great that immediately he saw his way clear he ‘hooked’ it. He travelled along the line and went through the Box tunnel, in which he was met by the packers. They heard his story, sympathised with him, conducted him to the mouth of the tunnel, and directed him in the way for home. Night was coming on and he lay down on a heap of coke between Box tunnel and Bath station and went to sleep. On the following morning he trudged his way to Bristol, and a generous man gave him 2/- 1d to pay his fare to Martock. The boy went onto Yeovil by mistake and then discovered that he had lost his ticket. The railway officials locked him up, but he opened the door and took his ‘hook’. The little boy got as far as Highleaze where a kind farmer picked him up. He (Mr. Mitchell) had been informed that because that farmer did that kind act efforts had been made to turn him out of his farm. But the boy, from walking was footsore – the skin having peeled off the bottom of his feet – and he was now living in a hole with a faggot in front to prevent detection. Knowing these things and having the feeling of a man and a father, he felt astounded that such things should take place in Christian England. Osborne, although nine, was about the size of a boy of six years of age. He had an unusually large belly, and, in his (Mr. Mitchell’s) opinion, would die. If the boy died, in the eyes of God they knew who would be put down in the ‘black book’ as the cause of the life of the lad being taken before it’s time. If that boy was again apprehended he did not know what the consequences would be. But he was determined that the subject should be brought before Parliament. He was satisfied that the father would act desperately if the boy were ever taken. If P.C. Green was present he should like to ask him a question. He (Mr. Mitchell) understood that the policeman had been into several houses in Norton to find the boy. But if he examined every house the boy would not be found. P.C. Green had, however, gone into several private houses, demanded lights, and looked into chest. He should like P.C. Green to inform him whether he had warrants to search these houses. If not informed he should ask for information of Mr. Harbin. He was certain that Superintendent Smith would not sanction such a procedure, but they could easily judge who was forcing on the policeman.

We all know Charles Osborne perfectly well and the home he has been brought up in. Every effort short of compulsion has been made for years past to get the boy without cost, to attend the National School. But he has not attended enough to learn his letters. He probably learned to curse and swear before he learned anything else. We believe that the best thing that could be done for the boy having regard to his future welfare and usefulness, would have been to send him to an industrial school as that at Bath, to which he was sent by the Yeovil branch of magistrates. This school is not open to children who have been convicted of any crime punishable by imprisonment.

Sir – With reference to your application on behalf of the boy Charles Osborne I am directed by Mr. Secretary Cross to acquaint you that, having caused full enquiry to be made into the circumstances of the case, he does not feel it to be his duty to interfere in it as it present stands, for to do so would be to encourage the boy in setting the law in defiance, and others to commit a similar breach of it, and to countenance the persons who are assisting the boy in keeping him away from the industrial school to which he was legally sent.

If, however, the boy returns to that school and behaves well for a time and if his parents are in a condition to control and take care of him, and would undertake to see that he was properly educated and kept out of harms way for the future, Mr. Cross might then consider any application by them for the mitigation of the term for which he was sent to the industrial school.

Main Index