150 YEARS AGO THIS WEEK 25 - 31 AUGUST 1875
This week's many stories include the new harsh rules for the extreme poor claiming relief, the violent women's quarrel at a Water Street inn, the clothes stealing in Liverpool Street, the married couple brutally kicked in Greenbank and the bother in Phythian Street that led to a charge of assault against a bobby being dropped.
We begin on the 26th at a meeting of the Prescot Board of Guardians, which was held in the boardroom at Whiston Workhouse. The Master of the workhouse reported that there were at present 364 inmates, including 135 children, which was an increase from 323 in the corresponding week of 1874.
The Guardians were also responsible for what was known as "out-relief", small amounts of cash paid to the extreme poor in their own homes living within the community. The meeting was told that on the previous day their General Purposes Committee had met and were concerned that the yearly amount of out-relief had increased, whereas other Poor Law Unions had managed to reduce theirs.
Of course, there is still a desire today to reduce benefits' bills and their burden on the taxpayer. But the amount that was paid to claimants in the 1870s was a trifling amount, just enough to keep them and their families alive. It was revealed that the average claimant in St Helens received just 25 shillings per head over the year, although some persons only claimed for a short period.
The General Purposes Committee had come up with a range of efficiency savings, including banning giving out-relief to any of the following:
• Persons of a bad character • Single able-bodied men • Single able-bodied women • Able-bodied women without children or with only one child to support • Married women with or without families that had been left destitute through their husbands having joined the militia and being called up for training • Where the existing income of the head of the family and their children who were working was deemed sufficient for their support.
Exceptions could be made in cases of sickness but only for a period of two weeks, unless the sickness was certified by the appointed Medical Officer to be of a longer duration. Outdoor relief could also only be granted for 13 weeks at a time and children would no longer be allowed to collect the money on behalf of their father, except in special cases.
The new rules to save money had a lot of subjectivity in their application. For example, how did the Relieving Officer for each area define how a claimant had a bad character? Or whether the total income of a household was sufficient? Relieving Officers were effectively being given the power of life and death over claimant's families.
As I have often remarked, it was a tough life being a police officer in the 1870s. Usually, the courts recognised that and supported the police, although they rarely imposed prison sentences on defendants for assaulting officers. But when brothers James and Thomas Roberts appeared in St Helens Police Court charged with drunkenness and assaulting PC McDonald, the magistrates dismissed the latter charge.
The trouble had taken place in Phythian Street in the notorious Greenbank district when the constable found James Roberts drunk and very disorderly. It was the usual story of the officer telling the man to go home but, as he refused to do so, Roberts was taken into custody. Then, as so often happened, as he attempted to take his prisoner to the police station, a large crowd gathered.
Some of the mob were said to have so "menaced" the officer that he had to draw his staff in self-defence. The Newspaper wrote: "He “laid on” pretty well amongst those about him and amongst others he struck James Roberts on the head and broke his staff. While this was going on Thomas Roberts came up, and after a struggle with the constable, he succeeded in rescuing his brother, who got away, and then the constable apprehended him."
However, the brothers' defence solicitor argued that James Roberts had not been in lawful custody and therefore had been justified in getting away, as was his brother in rescuing him. The magistrates surprisingly accepted that argument, curiously explaining that the constable should have summonsed James Roberts instead of apprehending him.
In other words, he should have let the disorderly man alone and on the following day issued a summons for him to appear in court. And so the assault charge was rejected but the brothers were both fined 10 shillings and costs for their drunkenness and disorderly conduct.
With many large estates within the St Helens district, gamekeepers used part-time watchers to supplement their numbers and keep an eye out for poachers. Thomas Rigby's main job was as a glassmaker at Pilkington's but he also worked as a watcher for a man called Longton. When Thomas Potter was charged in the Petty Sessions with trespassing in pursuit of game, Thomas Rigby gave evidence that he had seen the man with three dogs walking in a field of clover root at Ravenhead where there was lots of game about. As a result, the defendant was fined 20 shillings and costs or must spend a month in prison.
Peter Rigby had a lucky escape this week. He appeared in court charged with entering the dwelling house of Ann Preston of Liverpool Street in St Helens (pictured above) between 1 am and 7 am on the previous Sunday morning. Rigby was accused of stealing a shirt, a muffler and a pair of socks.
Although their total value was only 5 shillings, clothes stealing was treated very seriously and usually led to a custodial sentence. But Ann told the Bench that she believed Rigby had only taken the things to "plague" her and she said she had decided not to press the case. As a result the prisoner was discharged with a caution.
This week's violent women's quarrel took place in Water Street and was between Sophia Middleton and Elizabeth Ratcliffe. The latter's husband, Henry, kept the Horseshoe Inn and Elizabeth accused Sophia of picking up a brick or large stone and throwing it at her eye. The incident had taken place at the pub after Sophia Middleton had been having an argument with her husband and she had not appreciated the landlady's intervention.
But Mrs Middleton denied the allegation and told the court that the problem was that the Ratcliffes were in the habit of letting her husband be served drink on credit and she was upset upon finding that her husband was drunk. Sophia Middleton had brought her own cross-summons but the magistrates dismissed it and fined the woman five shillings and costs.
On the 31st another brutal kicking case was described in St Helens Petty Sessions. Michael Ford was charged with unlawfully wounding a brickmaker called Edward Thomas, along with his wife, by attacking them on the previous afternoon. The unprovoked assault had taken place in Copperas Street in Greenbank after the couple had been returning from visiting Mrs Thomas's brother.
Michael Ford was a total stranger to the couple and upon approaching them he started using foul language. He then knocked Mr Thomas down and kicked him severely about his head and body, inflicting a wound on the man's head that was about two inches long.
His wife attempted to protect her husband and for her intervening, Ford kicked her about her face and body from which she was said to be still suffering. Michael Ford was remanded in custody for further enquiries to take place but would at a future hearing only be fined 20 shillings, plus costs.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the Dentons Green pear thefts, the start of the temperance groups' fight against the numerous St Helens pubs and a call for the building of a good approach road to the new St Helens Town Hall.
We begin on the 26th at a meeting of the Prescot Board of Guardians, which was held in the boardroom at Whiston Workhouse. The Master of the workhouse reported that there were at present 364 inmates, including 135 children, which was an increase from 323 in the corresponding week of 1874.
The Guardians were also responsible for what was known as "out-relief", small amounts of cash paid to the extreme poor in their own homes living within the community. The meeting was told that on the previous day their General Purposes Committee had met and were concerned that the yearly amount of out-relief had increased, whereas other Poor Law Unions had managed to reduce theirs.
Of course, there is still a desire today to reduce benefits' bills and their burden on the taxpayer. But the amount that was paid to claimants in the 1870s was a trifling amount, just enough to keep them and their families alive. It was revealed that the average claimant in St Helens received just 25 shillings per head over the year, although some persons only claimed for a short period.
The General Purposes Committee had come up with a range of efficiency savings, including banning giving out-relief to any of the following:
• Persons of a bad character • Single able-bodied men • Single able-bodied women • Able-bodied women without children or with only one child to support • Married women with or without families that had been left destitute through their husbands having joined the militia and being called up for training • Where the existing income of the head of the family and their children who were working was deemed sufficient for their support.
Exceptions could be made in cases of sickness but only for a period of two weeks, unless the sickness was certified by the appointed Medical Officer to be of a longer duration. Outdoor relief could also only be granted for 13 weeks at a time and children would no longer be allowed to collect the money on behalf of their father, except in special cases.
The new rules to save money had a lot of subjectivity in their application. For example, how did the Relieving Officer for each area define how a claimant had a bad character? Or whether the total income of a household was sufficient? Relieving Officers were effectively being given the power of life and death over claimant's families.
As I have often remarked, it was a tough life being a police officer in the 1870s. Usually, the courts recognised that and supported the police, although they rarely imposed prison sentences on defendants for assaulting officers. But when brothers James and Thomas Roberts appeared in St Helens Police Court charged with drunkenness and assaulting PC McDonald, the magistrates dismissed the latter charge.
The trouble had taken place in Phythian Street in the notorious Greenbank district when the constable found James Roberts drunk and very disorderly. It was the usual story of the officer telling the man to go home but, as he refused to do so, Roberts was taken into custody. Then, as so often happened, as he attempted to take his prisoner to the police station, a large crowd gathered.
Some of the mob were said to have so "menaced" the officer that he had to draw his staff in self-defence. The Newspaper wrote: "He “laid on” pretty well amongst those about him and amongst others he struck James Roberts on the head and broke his staff. While this was going on Thomas Roberts came up, and after a struggle with the constable, he succeeded in rescuing his brother, who got away, and then the constable apprehended him."
However, the brothers' defence solicitor argued that James Roberts had not been in lawful custody and therefore had been justified in getting away, as was his brother in rescuing him. The magistrates surprisingly accepted that argument, curiously explaining that the constable should have summonsed James Roberts instead of apprehending him.
In other words, he should have let the disorderly man alone and on the following day issued a summons for him to appear in court. And so the assault charge was rejected but the brothers were both fined 10 shillings and costs for their drunkenness and disorderly conduct.
With many large estates within the St Helens district, gamekeepers used part-time watchers to supplement their numbers and keep an eye out for poachers. Thomas Rigby's main job was as a glassmaker at Pilkington's but he also worked as a watcher for a man called Longton. When Thomas Potter was charged in the Petty Sessions with trespassing in pursuit of game, Thomas Rigby gave evidence that he had seen the man with three dogs walking in a field of clover root at Ravenhead where there was lots of game about. As a result, the defendant was fined 20 shillings and costs or must spend a month in prison.
Although their total value was only 5 shillings, clothes stealing was treated very seriously and usually led to a custodial sentence. But Ann told the Bench that she believed Rigby had only taken the things to "plague" her and she said she had decided not to press the case. As a result the prisoner was discharged with a caution.
This week's violent women's quarrel took place in Water Street and was between Sophia Middleton and Elizabeth Ratcliffe. The latter's husband, Henry, kept the Horseshoe Inn and Elizabeth accused Sophia of picking up a brick or large stone and throwing it at her eye. The incident had taken place at the pub after Sophia Middleton had been having an argument with her husband and she had not appreciated the landlady's intervention.
But Mrs Middleton denied the allegation and told the court that the problem was that the Ratcliffes were in the habit of letting her husband be served drink on credit and she was upset upon finding that her husband was drunk. Sophia Middleton had brought her own cross-summons but the magistrates dismissed it and fined the woman five shillings and costs.
On the 31st another brutal kicking case was described in St Helens Petty Sessions. Michael Ford was charged with unlawfully wounding a brickmaker called Edward Thomas, along with his wife, by attacking them on the previous afternoon. The unprovoked assault had taken place in Copperas Street in Greenbank after the couple had been returning from visiting Mrs Thomas's brother.
Michael Ford was a total stranger to the couple and upon approaching them he started using foul language. He then knocked Mr Thomas down and kicked him severely about his head and body, inflicting a wound on the man's head that was about two inches long.
His wife attempted to protect her husband and for her intervening, Ford kicked her about her face and body from which she was said to be still suffering. Michael Ford was remanded in custody for further enquiries to take place but would at a future hearing only be fined 20 shillings, plus costs.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the Dentons Green pear thefts, the start of the temperance groups' fight against the numerous St Helens pubs and a call for the building of a good approach road to the new St Helens Town Hall.
This week's many stories include the new harsh rules for the extreme poor claiming relief, the violent women's quarrel at a Water Street inn, the clothes stealing in Liverpool Street, the married couple brutally kicked in Greenbank and the bother in Phythian Street that led to a charge of assault against a bobby being dropped.
We begin on the 26th at a meeting of the Prescot Board of Guardians, which was held in the boardroom at Whiston Workhouse.
The Master of the workhouse reported that there were at present 364 inmates, including 135 children, which was an increase from 323 in the corresponding week of 1874.
The Guardians were also responsible for what was known as "out-relief", small amounts of cash paid to the extreme poor in their own homes living within the community.
The meeting was told that on the previous day their General Purposes Committee had met and were concerned that the yearly amount of out-relief had increased, whereas other Poor Law Unions had managed to reduce theirs.
Of course, there is still a desire today to reduce benefits' bills and their burden on the taxpayer.
But the amount that was paid to claimants in the 1870s was a trifling amount, just enough to keep them and their families alive.
It was revealed that the average claimant in St Helens received just 25 shillings per head over the year, although some persons only claimed for a short period.
The General Purposes Committee had come up with a range of efficiency savings, including banning giving out-relief to any of the following:
• Persons of a bad character
• Single able-bodied men
• Single able-bodied women
• Able-bodied women without children or with only one child to support
• Married women with or without families that had been left destitute through their husbands having joined the militia and being called up for training
• Where the existing income of the head of the family and their children who were working was deemed sufficient for their support
Exceptions could be made in cases of sickness but only for a period of two weeks, unless the sickness was certified by the appointed Medical Officer to be of a longer duration.
Outdoor relief could also only be granted for 13 weeks at a time and children would no longer be allowed to collect the money on behalf of their father, except in special cases.
The new rules to save money had a lot of subjectivity in their application.
For example, how did the Relieving Officer for each area define how a claimant had a bad character? Or whether the total income of a household was sufficient?
Relieving Officers were effectively being given the power of life and death over claimant's families.
As I have often remarked, it was a tough life being a police officer in the 1870s.
Usually, the courts recognised that and supported the police, although they rarely imposed prison sentences on defendants for assaulting officers.
But when brothers James and Thomas Roberts appeared in St Helens Police Court charged with drunkenness and assaulting PC McDonald, the magistrates dismissed the latter charge.
The trouble had taken place in Phythian Street in the notorious Greenbank district when the constable found James Roberts drunk and very disorderly.
It was the usual story of the officer telling the man to go home but, as he refused to do so, Roberts was taken into custody.
Then, as so often happened, as he attempted to take his prisoner to the police station, a large crowd gathered.
Some of the mob were said to have so "menaced" the officer that he had to draw his staff in self-defence.
The Newspaper wrote: "He “laid on” pretty well amongst those about him and amongst others he struck James Roberts on the head and broke his staff.
"While this was going on Thomas Roberts came up, and after a struggle with the constable, he succeeded in rescuing his brother, who got away, and then the constable apprehended him."
However, the brothers' defence solicitor argued that James Roberts had not been in lawful custody and therefore had been justified in getting away, as was his brother in rescuing him.
The magistrates surprisingly accepted that argument, curiously explaining that the constable should have summonsed James Roberts instead of apprehending him.
In other words, he should have let the disorderly man alone and on the following day issued a summons for him to appear in court.
And so the assault charge was rejected but the brothers were both fined 10 shillings and costs for their drunkenness and disorderly conduct.
With many large estates within the St Helens district, gamekeepers used part-time watchers to supplement their numbers and keep an eye out for poachers.
Thomas Rigby's main job was as a glassmaker at Pilkington's but he also worked as a watcher for a man called Longton.
When Thomas Potter was charged in the Petty Sessions with trespassing in pursuit of game, Thomas Rigby gave evidence that he had seen the man with three dogs walking in a field of clover root at Ravenhead where there was lots of game about.
As a result, the defendant was fined 20 shillings and costs or must spend a month in prison.
Peter Rigby had a lucky escape this week. He appeared in court charged with entering the dwelling house of Ann Preston of Liverpool Street in St Helens (pictured above) between 1 am and 7 am on the previous Sunday morning.
Rigby was accused of stealing a shirt, a muffler and a pair of socks. Although their total value was only 5 shillings, clothes stealing was treated very seriously and usually led to a custodial sentence.
But Ann told the Bench that she believed Rigby had only taken the things to "plague" her and she said she had decided not to press the case. As a result the prisoner was discharged with a caution.
This week's violent women's quarrel took place in Water Street and was between Sophia Middleton and Elizabeth Ratcliffe.
The latter's husband, Henry, kept the Horseshoe Inn and Elizabeth accused Sophia of picking up a brick or large stone and throwing it at her eye.
The incident had taken place at the pub after Sophia Middleton had been having an argument with her husband and she had not appreciated the landlady's intervention.
But Mrs Middleton denied the allegation and told the court that the problem was that the Ratcliffes were in the habit of letting her husband be served drink on credit and she was upset upon finding that her husband was drunk.
Sophia Middleton had brought her own cross-summons but the magistrates dismissed it and fined the woman five shillings and costs.
On the 31st another brutal kicking case was described in St Helens Petty Sessions.
Michael Ford was charged with unlawfully wounding a brickmaker called Edward Thomas, along with his wife, by attacking them on the previous afternoon.
The unprovoked assault had taken place in Copperas Street in Greenbank after the couple had been returning from visiting Mrs Thomas's brother.
Michael Ford was a total stranger to the couple and upon approaching them he started using foul language.
He then knocked Mr Thomas down and kicked him severely about his head and body, inflicting a wound on the man's head that was about two inches long.
His wife attempted to protect her husband and for her intervening, Ford kicked her about her face and body from which she was said to be still suffering.
Michael Ford was remanded in custody for further enquiries to take place but would at a future hearing only be fined 20 shillings, plus costs.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the Dentons Green pear thefts, the start of the temperance groups' fight against the numerous St Helens pubs and a call for the building of a good approach road to the new St Helens Town Hall.
We begin on the 26th at a meeting of the Prescot Board of Guardians, which was held in the boardroom at Whiston Workhouse.
The Master of the workhouse reported that there were at present 364 inmates, including 135 children, which was an increase from 323 in the corresponding week of 1874.
The Guardians were also responsible for what was known as "out-relief", small amounts of cash paid to the extreme poor in their own homes living within the community.
The meeting was told that on the previous day their General Purposes Committee had met and were concerned that the yearly amount of out-relief had increased, whereas other Poor Law Unions had managed to reduce theirs.
Of course, there is still a desire today to reduce benefits' bills and their burden on the taxpayer.
But the amount that was paid to claimants in the 1870s was a trifling amount, just enough to keep them and their families alive.
It was revealed that the average claimant in St Helens received just 25 shillings per head over the year, although some persons only claimed for a short period.
The General Purposes Committee had come up with a range of efficiency savings, including banning giving out-relief to any of the following:
• Persons of a bad character
• Single able-bodied men
• Single able-bodied women
• Able-bodied women without children or with only one child to support
• Married women with or without families that had been left destitute through their husbands having joined the militia and being called up for training
• Where the existing income of the head of the family and their children who were working was deemed sufficient for their support
Exceptions could be made in cases of sickness but only for a period of two weeks, unless the sickness was certified by the appointed Medical Officer to be of a longer duration.
Outdoor relief could also only be granted for 13 weeks at a time and children would no longer be allowed to collect the money on behalf of their father, except in special cases.
The new rules to save money had a lot of subjectivity in their application.
For example, how did the Relieving Officer for each area define how a claimant had a bad character? Or whether the total income of a household was sufficient?
Relieving Officers were effectively being given the power of life and death over claimant's families.
As I have often remarked, it was a tough life being a police officer in the 1870s.
Usually, the courts recognised that and supported the police, although they rarely imposed prison sentences on defendants for assaulting officers.
But when brothers James and Thomas Roberts appeared in St Helens Police Court charged with drunkenness and assaulting PC McDonald, the magistrates dismissed the latter charge.
The trouble had taken place in Phythian Street in the notorious Greenbank district when the constable found James Roberts drunk and very disorderly.
It was the usual story of the officer telling the man to go home but, as he refused to do so, Roberts was taken into custody.
Then, as so often happened, as he attempted to take his prisoner to the police station, a large crowd gathered.
Some of the mob were said to have so "menaced" the officer that he had to draw his staff in self-defence.
The Newspaper wrote: "He “laid on” pretty well amongst those about him and amongst others he struck James Roberts on the head and broke his staff.
"While this was going on Thomas Roberts came up, and after a struggle with the constable, he succeeded in rescuing his brother, who got away, and then the constable apprehended him."
However, the brothers' defence solicitor argued that James Roberts had not been in lawful custody and therefore had been justified in getting away, as was his brother in rescuing him.
The magistrates surprisingly accepted that argument, curiously explaining that the constable should have summonsed James Roberts instead of apprehending him.
In other words, he should have let the disorderly man alone and on the following day issued a summons for him to appear in court.
And so the assault charge was rejected but the brothers were both fined 10 shillings and costs for their drunkenness and disorderly conduct.
With many large estates within the St Helens district, gamekeepers used part-time watchers to supplement their numbers and keep an eye out for poachers.
Thomas Rigby's main job was as a glassmaker at Pilkington's but he also worked as a watcher for a man called Longton.
When Thomas Potter was charged in the Petty Sessions with trespassing in pursuit of game, Thomas Rigby gave evidence that he had seen the man with three dogs walking in a field of clover root at Ravenhead where there was lots of game about.
As a result, the defendant was fined 20 shillings and costs or must spend a month in prison.
Rigby was accused of stealing a shirt, a muffler and a pair of socks. Although their total value was only 5 shillings, clothes stealing was treated very seriously and usually led to a custodial sentence.
But Ann told the Bench that she believed Rigby had only taken the things to "plague" her and she said she had decided not to press the case. As a result the prisoner was discharged with a caution.
This week's violent women's quarrel took place in Water Street and was between Sophia Middleton and Elizabeth Ratcliffe.
The latter's husband, Henry, kept the Horseshoe Inn and Elizabeth accused Sophia of picking up a brick or large stone and throwing it at her eye.
The incident had taken place at the pub after Sophia Middleton had been having an argument with her husband and she had not appreciated the landlady's intervention.
But Mrs Middleton denied the allegation and told the court that the problem was that the Ratcliffes were in the habit of letting her husband be served drink on credit and she was upset upon finding that her husband was drunk.
Sophia Middleton had brought her own cross-summons but the magistrates dismissed it and fined the woman five shillings and costs.
On the 31st another brutal kicking case was described in St Helens Petty Sessions.
Michael Ford was charged with unlawfully wounding a brickmaker called Edward Thomas, along with his wife, by attacking them on the previous afternoon.
The unprovoked assault had taken place in Copperas Street in Greenbank after the couple had been returning from visiting Mrs Thomas's brother.
Michael Ford was a total stranger to the couple and upon approaching them he started using foul language.
He then knocked Mr Thomas down and kicked him severely about his head and body, inflicting a wound on the man's head that was about two inches long.
His wife attempted to protect her husband and for her intervening, Ford kicked her about her face and body from which she was said to be still suffering.
Michael Ford was remanded in custody for further enquiries to take place but would at a future hearing only be fined 20 shillings, plus costs.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next Week's stories will include the Dentons Green pear thefts, the start of the temperance groups' fight against the numerous St Helens pubs and a call for the building of a good approach road to the new St Helens Town Hall.