IOO YEARS AGO THIS WEEK (9th - 15th AUGUST 1921)
This week's stories include the crippled pedlar of Borough Road's knife attack on a fellow lodger, a sham burglary in Parr Stocks Road, the death of an outspoken St Helens solicitor and why women were considered incapable of ruling.
We begin on the 10th when coroner Samuel Brighouse conducted an inquest in Whiston where he expressed much sympathy for the father of Frank Brindle. That was in spite of the man having left his two-year-old son at his home in Cronton Avenue on his own. John Brindle explained to the coroner that he had taken his wife to see a doctor in Prescot and they discovered little Frank missing upon their return.
The boy had wandered off onto the railway line and been run over by the train used to take colliers from Cronton Colliery to the main line at Huyton Quarry. Samuel Brighouse said it had been a "collection of most unfortunate circumstances. Here in this case the man was doing his best for his wife and family, and has suffered nothing but misfortune." One wonders why the bereaved parents could not have taken their child with them to the doctor's?
The death of the outspoken St Helens solicitor Jeremiah Haslam Fox took place on the 10th. The 53-year-old was reported as having been in a delicate state of health for years – not that you would know that from his court appearances. Last March the fiery Fox had infuriated the police by accusing them of third degree tactics when interviewing a group of boys at Sutton Police Station.
And last year in court he had angrily accused the St Helens Chief Constable of bringing a case against one of his neighbours in Rainford Road in order to get at him. Fox then said: "To hit me this poor woman had been brought into the court. It was a dastardly, mean effort to get at a man that they could not look straight in the face."
Last December I quoted the St Helens Reporter in describing how the Engineer Hall in Croppers Hill had been "transformed into fairyland" for a Christmas party and added: "Santa was solicitor Jeremiah Haslam Fox who was also a part-time colonel in the Royal Engineer Volunteers – that were based in the Engineer Hall. In court – and probably with his soldiers – he was a tough old bird who spoke his mind. But clearly he had a soft spot too!"
On the 12th coal miner William Kelly from Waterloo Street was fined £2 in St Helens Police Court after thumping a colliery fireman at Ashtons Green Colliery in Parr. The mine was situated between Fleet Lane and Derbyshire Hill Road and closed in 1931 with 1,100 men on its books.
On the 13th what was described as a "monster bowling handicap" concluded at the Gerard Arms in Dentons Green Lane. It was a "monster" event as there had been 1,200 entries with proceeds in aid of Providence Hospital.
Also on that day the story of a sham burglary was told at St Helens Police Court when Henry Yates was charged with stealing £4 and a lady's gold ring. The 22-year-old colliery electrician lived with his father in Parr Stocks Road (pictured above) and had left for his work early one morning leaving the house looking like there'd been a burglary. When his father went downstairs he found the money and ring missing and contacted the police.
Eventually Henry Yates admitted being responsible for the theft and faking the burglary and the investigating detective retrieved the stolen items after going down the pit. However it seems that the father had forgiven his son, as when the magistrates put Henry on probation his Dad agreed to pay £5 as surety for his good behaviour.
One of the big contrasts in the journalism of today compared to the reporting of a century ago is the unnecessary and irrelevant way that people in court used to be described. So a defendant or a witness might be identified as "a jew", a "coloured man" or – as in a case in St Helens Police Court on the 15th – as a "cripple pedlar".
That was Aloysius Lord of Borough Road, who in the 1911 census was described as having no occupation with "paralysis 3½ years since" written in the infirmity section of the form. The 45-year-old's court appearance for stabbing a lodger in the neck with a table knife clearly had the severe housing crisis at its root. Inspector Roe told the court that Joseph Kerwin was lodging at the house and he and Aloysius Lord "slept together". Of course that has a different meaning today – but in 1921 there seems to have been far more shoving than loving going on in what would likely have been a single bed.
The two fell out – literally in the case of Lord – as he alleged that Kerwin had pushed him out of their bed one night. But then on the following day over supper, the "cripple pedlar" had got his revenge and stabbed his bedmate in the neck – for which he needed stitches. The magistrates said it was a very serious matter to use a knife but under the circumstances they would let Lord off with a 20 shillings fine.
Also in court was bookmaker Thomas Leyland of Carnarvon Street in Thatto Heath who was fined £10 after being arrested in Nutgrove Road.
And finally the non-St Helens item in the Liverpool Echo that attracted my interest this week was a long, critical article from author Alfred Leonard Summers about women. He had written (or would write) books on subjects as diverse as asbestos, anthracite, Sussex and the homes of George Eliot, amongst others. Summers was clearly a knowledgeable man but he also considered himself an expert on women. He wasn't – as you can read in this edited version of his highly chauvinistic piece that was headlined "Why Women Cannot Rule":
"The abnormal conditions prevailing during the Great War, when there was a dearth of man power, undoubtedly afforded women their opportunity (eagerly grasped) to acquire ephemeral prominence in spheres ordinarily and previously occupied by men. Unfortunately, the smaller but noisier section of the sex – the curious creatures who love to consider themselves so very “advanced,” and seize upon every opportunity to proclaim their “rights” (and wrongs) – entirely misunderstood the compliment offered to women, and stubbornly refused to consider the position other than a permanent one.
"Ever since the war – while, in consequence of the unreasonable and rather selfish attitude of these women, there has existed throughout the country what practically amounts to a sex war – propaganda has been steadily encouraged, both on the public platform and in the columns of the Press, clearly organised by women's societies of the “screaming sisterhood” type, to further the cause of the female sex in politics, the law, literature, commerce, religion – everything in short, preparing the foundation of the power to rule.
"Now, with all due respect to the sex – and nobody can have more respect and admiration for women as women than myself – I submit that their claims are baseless and their case poor in the extreme. Votes for women do not ensure the production of model members of Parliament, for instance. And as magistrates and local councillors, too, women are not a conspicuous success. As doctors woman leave much to be desired.
"Women cannot simultaneously be inefficient and claim “equality” with the efficiency of men. Many things are essential to qualify for that ambition, apart from mere efficiency, such as natural physical strength, endurance, tenacity, cool judgment, driving force, determination, consistency, logic, mental control in emergency, &c. – all of which powers are by nature more centred in men.
"Even a sense of fairness and chivalry is invariably lacking in the “fair” sex, paradoxical as it sounds! And it is futile to argue on their unfairness, or to appeal to their better nature, for women are so unreasonable. For these obvious reasons alone women, broadly speaking, cannot rule; but below are set forth types – predominating types – of the sex which absolutely bar them, in my humble opinion:-
1) The woman who would condemn a male prisoner charged “because he must have done something or he would not be in the dock.” (This type very numerous.)
2) The neurotic, nervously suspicious, unthinking woman, who is “Always too scared to do anything right.”
3) The dangerously hysterical being, who “imagines things,” and would impetuously swear a life away.
4) The kleptomaniac, or “lost memory” type (fashionable).
5) The woman capable of duping herself.
6) The woman with a bird-like intellect – and butterfly manners.
7) The “advanced,” self-assertive woman, who (like the lady who wrote to the papers) considers courtesy an “insult” to women!
8) The woman who (as per a certain jurywoman) can complacently sit and knit in the box while a poor prisoner is being tried for his life.
9) The woman who, when asked by the judge in an unsavoury case to leave the court, elects to stay.
10) The woman who clamours for entry to the court where an unsavoury case is to be heard. (Very numerous.)
11) The women who actually wait in a queue to ensure admittance!
12) The habitual liars. (Most women invent falsehoods with natural ease, minus qualms of conscience.)"
And that's where we must leave Mr Summers and his long diatribe – I don't want my female readers' blood vessels bursting! But it does give an insight into what women were up against a century ago with the man making generalisations from single, alleged incidents and making no allowance for women in limited authority (as MPs, councillors and magistrates) being completely new to their jobs and needing time to find their feet.
And finally, finally, on a similar theme, this brief piece was also in the Liverpool Echo about a magistrate on the Bench at Tottenham called Major P. B. Malone (who was also an MP) who this week humiliated a woman in court: "A woman came forward stylishly dressed and with a very low-cut blouse. Major Malone surveyed her more in sorrow than in anger. It was a pity, he said, that a respectable woman – or any woman for the matter of that – should attend the court in her nakedness. He liked to see women properly dressed and not with their chests exposed."
Next week's stories will include a family dispute in Sutton, the Elephant Lane housing dispute, the motorbike death crash at Bold Bridge and why the cats of Thatto Heath had had a great weekend!
We begin on the 10th when coroner Samuel Brighouse conducted an inquest in Whiston where he expressed much sympathy for the father of Frank Brindle. That was in spite of the man having left his two-year-old son at his home in Cronton Avenue on his own. John Brindle explained to the coroner that he had taken his wife to see a doctor in Prescot and they discovered little Frank missing upon their return.
The boy had wandered off onto the railway line and been run over by the train used to take colliers from Cronton Colliery to the main line at Huyton Quarry. Samuel Brighouse said it had been a "collection of most unfortunate circumstances. Here in this case the man was doing his best for his wife and family, and has suffered nothing but misfortune." One wonders why the bereaved parents could not have taken their child with them to the doctor's?
The death of the outspoken St Helens solicitor Jeremiah Haslam Fox took place on the 10th. The 53-year-old was reported as having been in a delicate state of health for years – not that you would know that from his court appearances. Last March the fiery Fox had infuriated the police by accusing them of third degree tactics when interviewing a group of boys at Sutton Police Station.
And last year in court he had angrily accused the St Helens Chief Constable of bringing a case against one of his neighbours in Rainford Road in order to get at him. Fox then said: "To hit me this poor woman had been brought into the court. It was a dastardly, mean effort to get at a man that they could not look straight in the face."
Last December I quoted the St Helens Reporter in describing how the Engineer Hall in Croppers Hill had been "transformed into fairyland" for a Christmas party and added: "Santa was solicitor Jeremiah Haslam Fox who was also a part-time colonel in the Royal Engineer Volunteers – that were based in the Engineer Hall. In court – and probably with his soldiers – he was a tough old bird who spoke his mind. But clearly he had a soft spot too!"
On the 12th coal miner William Kelly from Waterloo Street was fined £2 in St Helens Police Court after thumping a colliery fireman at Ashtons Green Colliery in Parr. The mine was situated between Fleet Lane and Derbyshire Hill Road and closed in 1931 with 1,100 men on its books.
On the 13th what was described as a "monster bowling handicap" concluded at the Gerard Arms in Dentons Green Lane. It was a "monster" event as there had been 1,200 entries with proceeds in aid of Providence Hospital.
Eventually Henry Yates admitted being responsible for the theft and faking the burglary and the investigating detective retrieved the stolen items after going down the pit. However it seems that the father had forgiven his son, as when the magistrates put Henry on probation his Dad agreed to pay £5 as surety for his good behaviour.
One of the big contrasts in the journalism of today compared to the reporting of a century ago is the unnecessary and irrelevant way that people in court used to be described. So a defendant or a witness might be identified as "a jew", a "coloured man" or – as in a case in St Helens Police Court on the 15th – as a "cripple pedlar".
That was Aloysius Lord of Borough Road, who in the 1911 census was described as having no occupation with "paralysis 3½ years since" written in the infirmity section of the form. The 45-year-old's court appearance for stabbing a lodger in the neck with a table knife clearly had the severe housing crisis at its root. Inspector Roe told the court that Joseph Kerwin was lodging at the house and he and Aloysius Lord "slept together". Of course that has a different meaning today – but in 1921 there seems to have been far more shoving than loving going on in what would likely have been a single bed.
The two fell out – literally in the case of Lord – as he alleged that Kerwin had pushed him out of their bed one night. But then on the following day over supper, the "cripple pedlar" had got his revenge and stabbed his bedmate in the neck – for which he needed stitches. The magistrates said it was a very serious matter to use a knife but under the circumstances they would let Lord off with a 20 shillings fine.
Also in court was bookmaker Thomas Leyland of Carnarvon Street in Thatto Heath who was fined £10 after being arrested in Nutgrove Road.
And finally the non-St Helens item in the Liverpool Echo that attracted my interest this week was a long, critical article from author Alfred Leonard Summers about women. He had written (or would write) books on subjects as diverse as asbestos, anthracite, Sussex and the homes of George Eliot, amongst others. Summers was clearly a knowledgeable man but he also considered himself an expert on women. He wasn't – as you can read in this edited version of his highly chauvinistic piece that was headlined "Why Women Cannot Rule":
"The abnormal conditions prevailing during the Great War, when there was a dearth of man power, undoubtedly afforded women their opportunity (eagerly grasped) to acquire ephemeral prominence in spheres ordinarily and previously occupied by men. Unfortunately, the smaller but noisier section of the sex – the curious creatures who love to consider themselves so very “advanced,” and seize upon every opportunity to proclaim their “rights” (and wrongs) – entirely misunderstood the compliment offered to women, and stubbornly refused to consider the position other than a permanent one.
"Ever since the war – while, in consequence of the unreasonable and rather selfish attitude of these women, there has existed throughout the country what practically amounts to a sex war – propaganda has been steadily encouraged, both on the public platform and in the columns of the Press, clearly organised by women's societies of the “screaming sisterhood” type, to further the cause of the female sex in politics, the law, literature, commerce, religion – everything in short, preparing the foundation of the power to rule.
"Now, with all due respect to the sex – and nobody can have more respect and admiration for women as women than myself – I submit that their claims are baseless and their case poor in the extreme. Votes for women do not ensure the production of model members of Parliament, for instance. And as magistrates and local councillors, too, women are not a conspicuous success. As doctors woman leave much to be desired.
"Women cannot simultaneously be inefficient and claim “equality” with the efficiency of men. Many things are essential to qualify for that ambition, apart from mere efficiency, such as natural physical strength, endurance, tenacity, cool judgment, driving force, determination, consistency, logic, mental control in emergency, &c. – all of which powers are by nature more centred in men.
"Even a sense of fairness and chivalry is invariably lacking in the “fair” sex, paradoxical as it sounds! And it is futile to argue on their unfairness, or to appeal to their better nature, for women are so unreasonable. For these obvious reasons alone women, broadly speaking, cannot rule; but below are set forth types – predominating types – of the sex which absolutely bar them, in my humble opinion:-
1) The woman who would condemn a male prisoner charged “because he must have done something or he would not be in the dock.” (This type very numerous.)
2) The neurotic, nervously suspicious, unthinking woman, who is “Always too scared to do anything right.”
3) The dangerously hysterical being, who “imagines things,” and would impetuously swear a life away.
4) The kleptomaniac, or “lost memory” type (fashionable).
5) The woman capable of duping herself.
6) The woman with a bird-like intellect – and butterfly manners.
7) The “advanced,” self-assertive woman, who (like the lady who wrote to the papers) considers courtesy an “insult” to women!
8) The woman who (as per a certain jurywoman) can complacently sit and knit in the box while a poor prisoner is being tried for his life.
9) The woman who, when asked by the judge in an unsavoury case to leave the court, elects to stay.
10) The woman who clamours for entry to the court where an unsavoury case is to be heard. (Very numerous.)
11) The women who actually wait in a queue to ensure admittance!
12) The habitual liars. (Most women invent falsehoods with natural ease, minus qualms of conscience.)"
And that's where we must leave Mr Summers and his long diatribe – I don't want my female readers' blood vessels bursting! But it does give an insight into what women were up against a century ago with the man making generalisations from single, alleged incidents and making no allowance for women in limited authority (as MPs, councillors and magistrates) being completely new to their jobs and needing time to find their feet.
And finally, finally, on a similar theme, this brief piece was also in the Liverpool Echo about a magistrate on the Bench at Tottenham called Major P. B. Malone (who was also an MP) who this week humiliated a woman in court: "A woman came forward stylishly dressed and with a very low-cut blouse. Major Malone surveyed her more in sorrow than in anger. It was a pity, he said, that a respectable woman – or any woman for the matter of that – should attend the court in her nakedness. He liked to see women properly dressed and not with their chests exposed."
Next week's stories will include a family dispute in Sutton, the Elephant Lane housing dispute, the motorbike death crash at Bold Bridge and why the cats of Thatto Heath had had a great weekend!
This week's stories include the crippled pedlar of Borough Road's knife attack on a fellow lodger, a sham burglary in Parr Stocks Road, the death of an outspoken St Helens solicitor and why women were considered incapable of ruling.
We begin on the 10th when coroner Samuel Brighouse conducted an inquest in Whiston where he expressed much sympathy for the father of Frank Brindle.
That was in spite of the man having left his two-year-old son at his home in Cronton Avenue on his own.
John Brindle explained to the coroner that he had taken his wife to see a doctor in Prescot and they discovered little Frank missing upon their return.
The boy had wandered off onto the railway line and been run over by the train used to take colliers from Cronton Colliery to the main line at Huyton Quarry.
Samuel Brighouse said it had been a "collection of most unfortunate circumstances. Here in this case the man was doing his best for his wife and family, and has suffered nothing but misfortune."
One wonders why the bereaved parents could not have taken their child with them to the doctor's?
The death of the outspoken St Helens solicitor Jeremiah Haslam Fox took place on the 10th.
The 53-year-old was reported as having been in a delicate state of health for years – not that you would know that from his court appearances.
Last March the fiery Fox had infuriated the police by accusing them of third degree tactics when interviewing a group of boys at Sutton Police Station.
And last year in court he had angrily accused the St Helens Chief Constable of bringing a case against one of his neighbours in Rainford Road in order to get at him.
Fox then said: "To hit me this poor woman had been brought into the court. It was a dastardly, mean effort to get at a man that they could not look straight in the face."
Last December I quoted the St Helens Reporter in describing how the Engineer Hall in Croppers Hill had been "transformed into fairyland" for a Christmas party and added:
"Santa was solicitor Jeremiah Haslam Fox who was also a part-time colonel in the Royal Engineer Volunteers – that were based in the Engineer Hall.
"In court – and probably with his soldiers – he was a tough old bird who spoke his mind. But clearly he had a soft spot too!"
On the 12th coal miner William Kelly from Waterloo Street was fined £2 in St Helens Police Court after thumping a colliery fireman at Ashtons Green Colliery in Parr.
The mine was situated between Fleet Lane and Derbyshire Hill Road and closed in 1931 with 1,100 men on its books.
On the 13th what was described as a "monster bowling handicap" concluded at the Gerard Arms in Dentons Green Lane.
It was a "monster" event as there had been 1,200 entries with proceeds in aid of Providence Hospital.
Also on that day the story of a sham burglary was told at St Helens Police Court when Henry Yates was charged with stealing £4 and a lady's gold ring.
The 22-year-old colliery electrician lived with his father in Parr Stocks Road (pictured above) and had left for his work early one morning leaving the house looking like there'd been a burglary.
When his father went downstairs he found the money and ring missing and contacted the police.
Eventually Henry Yates admitted being responsible for the theft and faking the burglary and the investigating detective retrieved the stolen items after going down the pit.
However it seems that the father had forgiven his son, as when the magistrates put Henry on probation his Dad agreed to pay £5 as surety for his good behaviour.
One of the big contrasts in the journalism of today compared to the reporting of a century ago is the unnecessary and irrelevant way that people in court used to be described.
So a defendant or a witness might be identified as "a jew", a "coloured man" or – as in a case in St Helens Police Court on the 15th – as a "cripple pedlar".
That was Aloysius Lord of Borough Road, who in the 1911 census was described as having no occupation with "paralysis 3½ years since" written in the infirmity section of the form.
The 45-year-old's court appearance for stabbing a lodger in the neck with a table knife clearly had the severe housing crisis at its root.
Inspector Roe told the court that Joseph Kerwin was lodging at the house and he and Aloysius Lord "slept together".
Of course that has a different meaning today – but in 1921 there seems to have been far more shoving than loving going on in what would likely have been a single bed.
The two fell out – literally in the case of Lord – as he alleged that Kerwin had pushed him out of their bed one night.
But then on the following day over supper, the "cripple pedlar" had got his revenge and stabbed his bedmate in the neck – for which he needed stitches.
The magistrates said it was a very serious matter to use a knife but under the circumstances they would let Lord off with a 20 shillings fine.
Also in court was bookmaker Thomas Leyland of Carnarvon Street in Thatto Heath who was fined £10 after being arrested in Nutgrove Road.
And finally the non-St Helens item in the Liverpool Echo that attracted my interest this week was a long, critical article from author Alfred Leonard Summers about women.
He had written (or would write) books on subjects as diverse as asbestos, anthracite, Sussex and the homes of George Eliot, amongst others.
Summers was clearly a knowledgeable man but he also considered himself an expert on women.
He wasn't – as you can read in this edited version of his highly chauvinistic piece that was headlined "Why Women Cannot Rule":
"The abnormal conditions prevailing during the Great War, when there was a dearth of man power, undoubtedly afforded women their opportunity (eagerly grasped) to acquire ephemeral prominence in spheres ordinarily and previously occupied by men.
"Unfortunately, the smaller but noisier section of the sex – the curious creatures who love to consider themselves so very “advanced,” and seize upon every opportunity to proclaim their “rights” (and wrongs) – entirely misunderstood the compliment offered to women, and stubbornly refused to consider the position other than a permanent one.
"Ever since the war – while, in consequence of the unreasonable and rather selfish attitude of these women, there has existed throughout the country what practically amounts to a sex war – propaganda has been steadily encouraged, both on the public platform and in the columns of the Press, clearly organised by women's societies of the “screaming sisterhood” type, to further the cause of the female sex in politics, the law, literature, commerce, religion – everything in short, preparing the foundation of the power to rule.
"Now, with all due respect to the sex – and nobody can have more respect and admiration for women as women than myself – I submit that their claims are baseless and their case poor in the extreme.
"Votes for women do not ensure the production of model members of Parliament, for instance.
"And as magistrates and local councillors, too, women are not a conspicuous success. As doctors woman leave much to be desired.
"Women cannot simultaneously be inefficient and claim “equality” with the efficiency of men.
"Many things are essential to qualify for that ambition, apart from mere efficiency, such as natural physical strength, endurance, tenacity, cool judgment, driving force, determination, consistency, logic, mental control in emergency, &c. – all of which powers are by nature more centred in men.
"Even a sense of fairness and chivalry is invariably lacking in the “fair” sex, paradoxical as it sounds!
"And it is futile to argue on their unfairness, or to appeal to their better nature, for women are so unreasonable.
"For these obvious reasons alone women, broadly speaking, cannot rule; but below are set forth types – predominating types – of the sex which absolutely bar them, in my humble opinion:-
1) The woman who would condemn a male prisoner charged “because he must have done something or he would not be in the dock.” (This type very numerous.)
2) The neurotic, nervously suspicious, unthinking woman, who is “Always too scared to do anything right.”
3) The dangerously hysterical being, who “imagines things,” and would impetuously swear a life away.
4) The kleptomaniac, or “lost memory” type (fashionable).
5) The woman capable of duping herself.
6) The woman with a bird-like intellect – and butterfly manners.
7) The “advanced,” self-assertive woman, who (like the lady who wrote to the papers) considers courtesy an “insult” to women!
8) The woman who (as per a certain jurywoman) can complacently sit and knit in the box while a poor prisoner is being tried for his life.
9) The woman who, when asked by the judge in an unsavoury case to leave the court, elects to stay.
10) The woman who clamours for entry to the court where an unsavoury case is to be heard. (Very numerous.)
11) The women who actually wait in a queue to ensure admittance!
12) The habitual liars. (Most women invent falsehoods with natural ease, minus qualms of conscience.)"
And that's where we must leave Mr Summers and his long diatribe – I don't want my female readers' blood vessels bursting!
But it does give an insight into what women were up against a century ago with the man making generalisations from single, alleged incidents and making no allowance for women in limited authority (as MPs, councillors and magistrates) being completely new to their jobs and needing time to find their feet.
And finally, finally, on a similar theme, this brief piece was also in the Liverpool Echo about a magistrate on the Bench at Tottenham called Major P. B. Malone (who was also an MP) who this week humiliated a woman in his court:
"A woman came forward stylishly dressed and with a very low-cut blouse. Major Malone surveyed her more in sorrow than in anger. It was a pity, he said, that a respectable woman – or any woman for the matter of that – should attend the court in her nakedness. He liked to see women properly dressed and not with their chests exposed."
Next Week's stories will include a family dispute in Sutton, the Elephant Lane housing dispute, the motorbike death crash at Bold Bridge and why the cats of Thatto Heath had had a great weekend!
We begin on the 10th when coroner Samuel Brighouse conducted an inquest in Whiston where he expressed much sympathy for the father of Frank Brindle.
That was in spite of the man having left his two-year-old son at his home in Cronton Avenue on his own.
John Brindle explained to the coroner that he had taken his wife to see a doctor in Prescot and they discovered little Frank missing upon their return.
The boy had wandered off onto the railway line and been run over by the train used to take colliers from Cronton Colliery to the main line at Huyton Quarry.
Samuel Brighouse said it had been a "collection of most unfortunate circumstances. Here in this case the man was doing his best for his wife and family, and has suffered nothing but misfortune."
One wonders why the bereaved parents could not have taken their child with them to the doctor's?
The death of the outspoken St Helens solicitor Jeremiah Haslam Fox took place on the 10th.
The 53-year-old was reported as having been in a delicate state of health for years – not that you would know that from his court appearances.
Last March the fiery Fox had infuriated the police by accusing them of third degree tactics when interviewing a group of boys at Sutton Police Station.
And last year in court he had angrily accused the St Helens Chief Constable of bringing a case against one of his neighbours in Rainford Road in order to get at him.
Fox then said: "To hit me this poor woman had been brought into the court. It was a dastardly, mean effort to get at a man that they could not look straight in the face."
Last December I quoted the St Helens Reporter in describing how the Engineer Hall in Croppers Hill had been "transformed into fairyland" for a Christmas party and added:
"Santa was solicitor Jeremiah Haslam Fox who was also a part-time colonel in the Royal Engineer Volunteers – that were based in the Engineer Hall.
"In court – and probably with his soldiers – he was a tough old bird who spoke his mind. But clearly he had a soft spot too!"
On the 12th coal miner William Kelly from Waterloo Street was fined £2 in St Helens Police Court after thumping a colliery fireman at Ashtons Green Colliery in Parr.
The mine was situated between Fleet Lane and Derbyshire Hill Road and closed in 1931 with 1,100 men on its books.
On the 13th what was described as a "monster bowling handicap" concluded at the Gerard Arms in Dentons Green Lane.
It was a "monster" event as there had been 1,200 entries with proceeds in aid of Providence Hospital.
Also on that day the story of a sham burglary was told at St Helens Police Court when Henry Yates was charged with stealing £4 and a lady's gold ring.
When his father went downstairs he found the money and ring missing and contacted the police.
Eventually Henry Yates admitted being responsible for the theft and faking the burglary and the investigating detective retrieved the stolen items after going down the pit.
However it seems that the father had forgiven his son, as when the magistrates put Henry on probation his Dad agreed to pay £5 as surety for his good behaviour.
One of the big contrasts in the journalism of today compared to the reporting of a century ago is the unnecessary and irrelevant way that people in court used to be described.
So a defendant or a witness might be identified as "a jew", a "coloured man" or – as in a case in St Helens Police Court on the 15th – as a "cripple pedlar".
That was Aloysius Lord of Borough Road, who in the 1911 census was described as having no occupation with "paralysis 3½ years since" written in the infirmity section of the form.
The 45-year-old's court appearance for stabbing a lodger in the neck with a table knife clearly had the severe housing crisis at its root.
Inspector Roe told the court that Joseph Kerwin was lodging at the house and he and Aloysius Lord "slept together".
Of course that has a different meaning today – but in 1921 there seems to have been far more shoving than loving going on in what would likely have been a single bed.
The two fell out – literally in the case of Lord – as he alleged that Kerwin had pushed him out of their bed one night.
But then on the following day over supper, the "cripple pedlar" had got his revenge and stabbed his bedmate in the neck – for which he needed stitches.
The magistrates said it was a very serious matter to use a knife but under the circumstances they would let Lord off with a 20 shillings fine.
Also in court was bookmaker Thomas Leyland of Carnarvon Street in Thatto Heath who was fined £10 after being arrested in Nutgrove Road.
And finally the non-St Helens item in the Liverpool Echo that attracted my interest this week was a long, critical article from author Alfred Leonard Summers about women.
He had written (or would write) books on subjects as diverse as asbestos, anthracite, Sussex and the homes of George Eliot, amongst others.
Summers was clearly a knowledgeable man but he also considered himself an expert on women.
He wasn't – as you can read in this edited version of his highly chauvinistic piece that was headlined "Why Women Cannot Rule":
"The abnormal conditions prevailing during the Great War, when there was a dearth of man power, undoubtedly afforded women their opportunity (eagerly grasped) to acquire ephemeral prominence in spheres ordinarily and previously occupied by men.
"Unfortunately, the smaller but noisier section of the sex – the curious creatures who love to consider themselves so very “advanced,” and seize upon every opportunity to proclaim their “rights” (and wrongs) – entirely misunderstood the compliment offered to women, and stubbornly refused to consider the position other than a permanent one.
"Ever since the war – while, in consequence of the unreasonable and rather selfish attitude of these women, there has existed throughout the country what practically amounts to a sex war – propaganda has been steadily encouraged, both on the public platform and in the columns of the Press, clearly organised by women's societies of the “screaming sisterhood” type, to further the cause of the female sex in politics, the law, literature, commerce, religion – everything in short, preparing the foundation of the power to rule.
"Now, with all due respect to the sex – and nobody can have more respect and admiration for women as women than myself – I submit that their claims are baseless and their case poor in the extreme.
"Votes for women do not ensure the production of model members of Parliament, for instance.
"And as magistrates and local councillors, too, women are not a conspicuous success. As doctors woman leave much to be desired.
"Women cannot simultaneously be inefficient and claim “equality” with the efficiency of men.
"Many things are essential to qualify for that ambition, apart from mere efficiency, such as natural physical strength, endurance, tenacity, cool judgment, driving force, determination, consistency, logic, mental control in emergency, &c. – all of which powers are by nature more centred in men.
"Even a sense of fairness and chivalry is invariably lacking in the “fair” sex, paradoxical as it sounds!
"And it is futile to argue on their unfairness, or to appeal to their better nature, for women are so unreasonable.
"For these obvious reasons alone women, broadly speaking, cannot rule; but below are set forth types – predominating types – of the sex which absolutely bar them, in my humble opinion:-
1) The woman who would condemn a male prisoner charged “because he must have done something or he would not be in the dock.” (This type very numerous.)
2) The neurotic, nervously suspicious, unthinking woman, who is “Always too scared to do anything right.”
3) The dangerously hysterical being, who “imagines things,” and would impetuously swear a life away.
4) The kleptomaniac, or “lost memory” type (fashionable).
5) The woman capable of duping herself.
6) The woman with a bird-like intellect – and butterfly manners.
7) The “advanced,” self-assertive woman, who (like the lady who wrote to the papers) considers courtesy an “insult” to women!
8) The woman who (as per a certain jurywoman) can complacently sit and knit in the box while a poor prisoner is being tried for his life.
9) The woman who, when asked by the judge in an unsavoury case to leave the court, elects to stay.
10) The woman who clamours for entry to the court where an unsavoury case is to be heard. (Very numerous.)
11) The women who actually wait in a queue to ensure admittance!
12) The habitual liars. (Most women invent falsehoods with natural ease, minus qualms of conscience.)"
And that's where we must leave Mr Summers and his long diatribe – I don't want my female readers' blood vessels bursting!
But it does give an insight into what women were up against a century ago with the man making generalisations from single, alleged incidents and making no allowance for women in limited authority (as MPs, councillors and magistrates) being completely new to their jobs and needing time to find their feet.
And finally, finally, on a similar theme, this brief piece was also in the Liverpool Echo about a magistrate on the Bench at Tottenham called Major P. B. Malone (who was also an MP) who this week humiliated a woman in his court:
"A woman came forward stylishly dressed and with a very low-cut blouse. Major Malone surveyed her more in sorrow than in anger. It was a pity, he said, that a respectable woman – or any woman for the matter of that – should attend the court in her nakedness. He liked to see women properly dressed and not with their chests exposed."
Next Week's stories will include a family dispute in Sutton, the Elephant Lane housing dispute, the motorbike death crash at Bold Bridge and why the cats of Thatto Heath had had a great weekend!