150 YEARS AGO THIS WEEK (1st - 7th MAY 1873)
This week's many stories include the annual May Day horse parade, the Bridge Street shopkeeper's generosity to a thief, the St Helens bricklayers' strike, the trouble building the new Town Hall, the St Helens stinky brook of the 1870s and the window-smashing woman who undermined her cruelty charges against her husband.
We begin with another accident on the railways – but this time it involved the shunting of wagons at St Helens Goods Station. A horse that was connected to the wagons by a chain was undertaking the shunting but became startled by an engine. That led to the chain tightening across the body of a young man called John Pearson who was injured. Horses often reacted badly to the presence of steam locos and so it seems odd that one was employed in shunting duties.
It was a long established custom for May Day to be celebrated in St Helens by a procession of horses and carts. These were specially spruced up for the occasion and decked out in rich decorative coverings. The St Helens Newspaper in describing this year's event said: "The sun shone forth in May-day splendour. From eleven o’clock until two, Church-street, Ormskirk-street, and Bridge-street, were crowded with hundreds of persons anxious to see the gaily caparisoned horses and their neatly-clad drivers."
All the major St Helens firms were represented in the procession and the Newspaper added: "It is a pleasing sight to see the carters taking so much pride in the horses committed to their care". What did not please the Newspaper was the inclusion in the procession "by a knacker" of a dead mare and foal.
They called it a "disgraceful exhibition" and called for the police to prevent "such outrages on public decency at all times, but especially on such occasions." The knacker responsible was not named in the report but last year Peter Spencer had been parading a dead horse in the May Day procession as a publicity stunt for his new knackers yard in Parr. In the evening many of the carters in the procession were treated to refreshments by their respective employers.
In March the bricklayers of St Helens had sought a pay rise from 33 to 36 shillings a week "in consideration of the increased cost of living". That was a relatively high wage but it was not all it seemed, as working outside had considerable disadvantages for the brickies. Like most workers they only got paid for the work that they did and so if the weather was bad they could not work and so received no pay.
The men argued that they lost an average of three months every year from bad weather and other causes. Their employers or "masters" had subsequently met to consider the men's request and proposed increasing their pay to 8d an hour. The bricklayers had rejected the offer and on the 5th started an indefinite strike.
Unless women were seen as meek and mild they had little chance of success in any court action against their violent husband. Fighting back in any way or taking to drink was used to undermine the woman's case. This is how the St Helens Newspaper on the 3rd described what occurred at the end of a Petty Sessions hearing this week when a wife sought an arrest warrant against her violent husband:
"A sharp looking young woman came up at the termination of the business, to ask that a warrant might be granted against her husband for ill-treatment he had given her. Mr. Spencely [court clerk] (whose duty it is in such cases to put personal and painful questions) inquired minutely into the domestic differences that led to the application. The young woman complained that her spouse was cruel to her, and she was so harassed that she would require a separate maintenance.
"Mr. Spencely assured her that she could not proceed for separate maintenance without first moving the poor law authorities, and suggested the advisability of contenting herself with a [court] summons against the husband; but she insisted on a warrant, and prayed the bench to grant it.
"Supt. Ludlam now rose up and asked her if, after being put out of her house by her husband, she had revenged herself by breaking the windows. To this question she replied in the affirmative, and immediately every chance she had of a warrant vanished into thin air. She left the court with her mother, and both talked so freely of their wrongs that one could wish the husband [to be] at a safe distance – for his own sake."
The contract to build the new St Helens Town Hall in what was then Cotham Street had gone to a chap called Thomas Urmson. At the quarterly meeting of St Helens Town Council on the 7th it was revealed that the Liverpool master builder was having financial trouble. Sub-contractors were undertaking some of the work and they wanted advance payments in order to buy materials etc.
That was something Urmson had not seemingly bargained for and so he had asked the council for a 6½% advance on his £28,000 fee so that he could make similar payments to the sub-contracted firms. The council's Improvement Committee had told the man that he must stick to his contract and threatened to ask all the firms who'd tendered to build the Town Hall to resubmit their bids. The full council meeting confirmed this bluff calling and the ball was now firmly in Urmson's court.
The so-called "stinky brook" of Sutton and Parr was not just a 20th century health hazard. St Helens' firms had been dumping their effluent into the waterway many decades before. All that changed over time was that different factories and industries polluted the brook with chemical firms (such as the Kurtz plant pictured above) being the main villains during the 1870s. They committed two types of ground-based pollution.
One was the deliberate act of expelling their effluent into the waterway and the other was dumping chemical waste heaps near to the brook. Drainage was then permitted to run off the heaps into the water. At the council meeting Cllr. Bishop called for action to stop the second type of contamination.
However, there was a third type of pollutant from chemical firms – suphuretted hydrogen (known these days as hydrogen sulphide) – which was being transmitted into the atmosphere which Cllr. Allen argued was "the great enemy to health". In truth all three forms (and many others) were highly injurious to St Helens folk. However, Cllr. Allen moved that the council's newly appointed medical officer be instructed to look solely into the effects of suphuretted hydrogen in the air and report back to the council and his amendment was adopted.
Divorces were so expensive and came with such stigma that they were few and far between. On the 6th the case of Lord vs. Lord was heard in which a wife accused her husband of adultery and cruelty. The couple had married at Prescot Parish Church in February 1869. At the time the woman possessed some property but that automatically passed to the husband upon their wedding.
Mrs Lord told the court that her husband was in the habit of getting drunk and beating her and their servants gave evidence supporting her claim. Mr Lord was also accused of committing adultery while the couple were living at Whiston and after hearing the evidence the judge granted a decree nisi.
In St Helens Petty Sessions on the 6th, Catherine Donoghue had a very lucky break. Peter McKinley – who was described as a dealer in smallware – had employed the young woman as a shop assistant. From his premises in Birmingham House in Bridge Street in St Helens he sold all sorts of fancy goods and small articles, which because of their size could easily be spirited away.
When police searched Catherine's lodgings they found a number of stolen items, including nearly 100 pairs of kid gloves that had been hidden in the bedding underneath her sick mother. The head of St Helens police, James Ludlam, told the magistrates that Mr McKinley had decided not to prosecute the woman and so he requested a discharge from the court. Probably it was Catherine's circumstances with a sickly mum that led to McKinley's generous decision, as the young woman could have expected to be sent to prison for her thefts.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next week's stories will include the man that beat his wife black and blue for associating with neighbours, the drunken man at the chemical works that nearly caused an explosion and the small number of patients at the new Cottage Hospital.
We begin with another accident on the railways – but this time it involved the shunting of wagons at St Helens Goods Station. A horse that was connected to the wagons by a chain was undertaking the shunting but became startled by an engine. That led to the chain tightening across the body of a young man called John Pearson who was injured. Horses often reacted badly to the presence of steam locos and so it seems odd that one was employed in shunting duties.
It was a long established custom for May Day to be celebrated in St Helens by a procession of horses and carts. These were specially spruced up for the occasion and decked out in rich decorative coverings. The St Helens Newspaper in describing this year's event said: "The sun shone forth in May-day splendour. From eleven o’clock until two, Church-street, Ormskirk-street, and Bridge-street, were crowded with hundreds of persons anxious to see the gaily caparisoned horses and their neatly-clad drivers."
All the major St Helens firms were represented in the procession and the Newspaper added: "It is a pleasing sight to see the carters taking so much pride in the horses committed to their care". What did not please the Newspaper was the inclusion in the procession "by a knacker" of a dead mare and foal.
They called it a "disgraceful exhibition" and called for the police to prevent "such outrages on public decency at all times, but especially on such occasions." The knacker responsible was not named in the report but last year Peter Spencer had been parading a dead horse in the May Day procession as a publicity stunt for his new knackers yard in Parr. In the evening many of the carters in the procession were treated to refreshments by their respective employers.
In March the bricklayers of St Helens had sought a pay rise from 33 to 36 shillings a week "in consideration of the increased cost of living". That was a relatively high wage but it was not all it seemed, as working outside had considerable disadvantages for the brickies. Like most workers they only got paid for the work that they did and so if the weather was bad they could not work and so received no pay.
The men argued that they lost an average of three months every year from bad weather and other causes. Their employers or "masters" had subsequently met to consider the men's request and proposed increasing their pay to 8d an hour. The bricklayers had rejected the offer and on the 5th started an indefinite strike.
Unless women were seen as meek and mild they had little chance of success in any court action against their violent husband. Fighting back in any way or taking to drink was used to undermine the woman's case. This is how the St Helens Newspaper on the 3rd described what occurred at the end of a Petty Sessions hearing this week when a wife sought an arrest warrant against her violent husband:
"A sharp looking young woman came up at the termination of the business, to ask that a warrant might be granted against her husband for ill-treatment he had given her. Mr. Spencely [court clerk] (whose duty it is in such cases to put personal and painful questions) inquired minutely into the domestic differences that led to the application. The young woman complained that her spouse was cruel to her, and she was so harassed that she would require a separate maintenance.
"Mr. Spencely assured her that she could not proceed for separate maintenance without first moving the poor law authorities, and suggested the advisability of contenting herself with a [court] summons against the husband; but she insisted on a warrant, and prayed the bench to grant it.
"Supt. Ludlam now rose up and asked her if, after being put out of her house by her husband, she had revenged herself by breaking the windows. To this question she replied in the affirmative, and immediately every chance she had of a warrant vanished into thin air. She left the court with her mother, and both talked so freely of their wrongs that one could wish the husband [to be] at a safe distance – for his own sake."
The contract to build the new St Helens Town Hall in what was then Cotham Street had gone to a chap called Thomas Urmson. At the quarterly meeting of St Helens Town Council on the 7th it was revealed that the Liverpool master builder was having financial trouble. Sub-contractors were undertaking some of the work and they wanted advance payments in order to buy materials etc.
That was something Urmson had not seemingly bargained for and so he had asked the council for a 6½% advance on his £28,000 fee so that he could make similar payments to the sub-contracted firms. The council's Improvement Committee had told the man that he must stick to his contract and threatened to ask all the firms who'd tendered to build the Town Hall to resubmit their bids. The full council meeting confirmed this bluff calling and the ball was now firmly in Urmson's court.
One was the deliberate act of expelling their effluent into the waterway and the other was dumping chemical waste heaps near to the brook. Drainage was then permitted to run off the heaps into the water. At the council meeting Cllr. Bishop called for action to stop the second type of contamination.
However, there was a third type of pollutant from chemical firms – suphuretted hydrogen (known these days as hydrogen sulphide) – which was being transmitted into the atmosphere which Cllr. Allen argued was "the great enemy to health". In truth all three forms (and many others) were highly injurious to St Helens folk. However, Cllr. Allen moved that the council's newly appointed medical officer be instructed to look solely into the effects of suphuretted hydrogen in the air and report back to the council and his amendment was adopted.
Divorces were so expensive and came with such stigma that they were few and far between. On the 6th the case of Lord vs. Lord was heard in which a wife accused her husband of adultery and cruelty. The couple had married at Prescot Parish Church in February 1869. At the time the woman possessed some property but that automatically passed to the husband upon their wedding.
Mrs Lord told the court that her husband was in the habit of getting drunk and beating her and their servants gave evidence supporting her claim. Mr Lord was also accused of committing adultery while the couple were living at Whiston and after hearing the evidence the judge granted a decree nisi.
In St Helens Petty Sessions on the 6th, Catherine Donoghue had a very lucky break. Peter McKinley – who was described as a dealer in smallware – had employed the young woman as a shop assistant. From his premises in Birmingham House in Bridge Street in St Helens he sold all sorts of fancy goods and small articles, which because of their size could easily be spirited away.
When police searched Catherine's lodgings they found a number of stolen items, including nearly 100 pairs of kid gloves that had been hidden in the bedding underneath her sick mother. The head of St Helens police, James Ludlam, told the magistrates that Mr McKinley had decided not to prosecute the woman and so he requested a discharge from the court. Probably it was Catherine's circumstances with a sickly mum that led to McKinley's generous decision, as the young woman could have expected to be sent to prison for her thefts.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next week's stories will include the man that beat his wife black and blue for associating with neighbours, the drunken man at the chemical works that nearly caused an explosion and the small number of patients at the new Cottage Hospital.
This week's many stories include the annual May Day horse parade, the Bridge Street shopkeeper's generosity to a thief, the St Helens bricklayers' strike, the trouble building the new Town Hall, the St Helens stinky brook of the 1870s and the window-smashing woman who undermined her cruelty charges against her husband.
We begin with another accident on the railways – but this time it involved the shunting of wagons at St Helens Goods Station.
A horse that was connected to the wagons by a chain was undertaking the shunting but became startled by an engine.
That led to the chain tightening across the body of a young man called John Pearson who was injured.
Horses often reacted badly to the presence of steam locos and so it seems odd that one was employed in shunting duties.
It was a long established custom for May Day to be celebrated in St Helens by a procession of horses and carts.
These were specially spruced up for the occasion and decked out in rich decorative coverings. The St Helens Newspaper in describing this year's event said:
"The sun shone forth in May-day splendour. From eleven o’clock until two, Church-street, Ormskirk-street, and Bridge-street, were crowded with hundreds of persons anxious to see the gaily caparisoned horses and their neatly-clad drivers."
All the major St Helens firms were represented in the procession and the Newspaper added:
"It is a pleasing sight to see the carters taking so much pride in the horses committed to their care".
What did not please the Newspaper was the inclusion in the procession "by a knacker" of a dead mare and foal.
They called it a "disgraceful exhibition" and called for the police to prevent "such outrages on public decency at all times, but especially on such occasions."
The knacker responsible was not named in the report but last year Peter Spencer had been parading a dead horse in the May Day procession as a publicity stunt for his new knackers yard in Parr.
In the evening many of the carters in the procession were treated to refreshments by their respective employers.
In March the bricklayers of St Helens had sought a pay rise from 33 to 36 shillings a week "in consideration of the increased cost of living".
That was a relatively high wage but it was not all it seemed, as working outside had considerable disadvantages for the brickies.
Like most workers they only got paid for the work that they did and so if the weather was bad they could not work and so received no pay.
The men argued that they lost an average of three months every year from bad weather and other causes.
Their employers or "masters" had subsequently met to consider the men's request and proposed increasing their pay to 8d an hour.
The bricklayers had rejected the offer and on the 5th started an indefinite strike.
Unless women were seen as meek and mild they had little chance of success in any court action against their violent husband.
Fighting back in any way or taking to drink was used to undermine the woman's case.
This is how the St Helens Newspaper on the 3rd described what occurred at the end of a Petty Sessions hearing this week when a wife sought an arrest warrant against her violent husband:
"A sharp looking young woman came up at the termination of the business, to ask that a warrant might be granted against her husband for ill-treatment he had given her. Mr. Spencely [court clerk] (whose duty it is in such cases to put personal and painful questions) inquired minutely into the domestic differences that led to the application.
"The young woman complained that her spouse was cruel to her, and she was so harassed that she would require a separate maintenance.
"Mr. Spencely assured her that she could not proceed for separate maintenance without first moving the poor law authorities, and suggested the advisability of contenting herself with a [court] summons against the husband; but she insisted on a warrant, and prayed the bench to grant it.
"Supt. Ludlam now rose up and asked her if, after being put out of her house by her husband, she had revenged herself by breaking the windows.
"To this question she replied in the affirmative, and immediately every chance she had of a warrant vanished into thin air.
"She left the court with her mother, and both talked so freely of their wrongs that one could wish the husband [to be] at a safe distance – for his own sake."
The contract to build the new St Helens Town Hall in what was then Cotham Street had gone to a chap called Thomas Urmson.
At the quarterly meeting of St Helens Town Council on the 7th it was revealed that the Liverpool master builder was having financial trouble.
Sub-contractors were undertaking some of the work and they wanted advance payments in order to buy materials etc.
That was something Urmson had not seemingly bargained for and so he had asked the council for a 6½% advance on his £28,000 fee so that he could make similar payments to the sub-contracted firms.
The council's Improvement Committee had told the man that he must stick to his contract and threatened to ask all the firms who'd tendered to build the Town Hall to resubmit their bids.
The full council meeting confirmed this bluff calling and the ball was now firmly in Urmson's court.
The so-called "stinky brook" of Sutton and Parr was not just a 20th century health hazard.
St Helens' firms had been dumping their effluent into the waterway many decades before.
All that changed over time was that different factories and industries polluted the brook with chemical firms (such as the Kurtz plant pictured above) being the main villains during the 1870s.
They committed two types of ground-based pollution. One was the deliberate act of expelling their effluent into the waterway and the other was dumping chemical waste heaps near to the brook. Drainage was then permitted to run off the heaps into the water.
At the council meeting Cllr. Bishop called for action to stop the second type of contamination.
However, there was a third type of pollutant from chemical firms – suphuretted hydrogen (known these days as hydrogen sulphide) – which was being transmitted into the atmosphere which Cllr. Allen argued was "the great enemy to health".
In truth all three forms (and many others) were highly injurious to St Helens folk.
However, Cllr. Allen moved that the council's newly appointed medical officer be instructed to look solely into the effects of suphuretted hydrogen in the air and report back to the council and his amendment was adopted.
Divorces were so expensive and came with such stigma that they were few and far between.
On the 6th the case of Lord vs. Lord was heard in which a wife accused her husband of adultery and cruelty. The couple had married at Prescot Parish Church in February 1869.
At the time the woman possessed some property but that automatically passed to the husband upon their wedding.
Mrs Lord told the court that her husband was in the habit of getting drunk and beating her and their servants gave evidence supporting her claim.
Mr Lord was also accused of committing adultery while the couple were living at Whiston and after hearing the evidence the judge granted a decree nisi.
In St Helens Petty Sessions on the 6th, Catherine Donoghue had a very lucky break.
Peter McKinley – who was described as a dealer in smallware – had employed the young woman as a shop assistant.
From his premises in Birmingham House in Bridge Street in St Helens he sold all sorts of fancy goods and small articles, which because of their size could easily be spirited away.
When police searched Catherine's lodgings they found a number of stolen items, including nearly 100 pairs of kid gloves that had been hidden in the bedding underneath her sick mother.
The head of St Helens police, James Ludlam, told the magistrates that Mr McKinley had decided not to prosecute the woman and so he requested a discharge from the court.
Probably it was Catherine's circumstances with a sickly mum that led to McKinley's generous decision, as the young woman could have expected to be sent to prison for her thefts.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next week's stories will include the man that beat his wife black and blue for associating with neighbours, the drunken man at the chemical works that nearly caused an explosion and the small number of patients at the new Cottage Hospital.
We begin with another accident on the railways – but this time it involved the shunting of wagons at St Helens Goods Station.
A horse that was connected to the wagons by a chain was undertaking the shunting but became startled by an engine.
That led to the chain tightening across the body of a young man called John Pearson who was injured.
Horses often reacted badly to the presence of steam locos and so it seems odd that one was employed in shunting duties.
It was a long established custom for May Day to be celebrated in St Helens by a procession of horses and carts.
These were specially spruced up for the occasion and decked out in rich decorative coverings. The St Helens Newspaper in describing this year's event said:
"The sun shone forth in May-day splendour. From eleven o’clock until two, Church-street, Ormskirk-street, and Bridge-street, were crowded with hundreds of persons anxious to see the gaily caparisoned horses and their neatly-clad drivers."
All the major St Helens firms were represented in the procession and the Newspaper added:
"It is a pleasing sight to see the carters taking so much pride in the horses committed to their care".
What did not please the Newspaper was the inclusion in the procession "by a knacker" of a dead mare and foal.
They called it a "disgraceful exhibition" and called for the police to prevent "such outrages on public decency at all times, but especially on such occasions."
The knacker responsible was not named in the report but last year Peter Spencer had been parading a dead horse in the May Day procession as a publicity stunt for his new knackers yard in Parr.
In the evening many of the carters in the procession were treated to refreshments by their respective employers.
In March the bricklayers of St Helens had sought a pay rise from 33 to 36 shillings a week "in consideration of the increased cost of living".
That was a relatively high wage but it was not all it seemed, as working outside had considerable disadvantages for the brickies.
Like most workers they only got paid for the work that they did and so if the weather was bad they could not work and so received no pay.
The men argued that they lost an average of three months every year from bad weather and other causes.
Their employers or "masters" had subsequently met to consider the men's request and proposed increasing their pay to 8d an hour.
The bricklayers had rejected the offer and on the 5th started an indefinite strike.
Unless women were seen as meek and mild they had little chance of success in any court action against their violent husband.
Fighting back in any way or taking to drink was used to undermine the woman's case.
This is how the St Helens Newspaper on the 3rd described what occurred at the end of a Petty Sessions hearing this week when a wife sought an arrest warrant against her violent husband:
"A sharp looking young woman came up at the termination of the business, to ask that a warrant might be granted against her husband for ill-treatment he had given her. Mr. Spencely [court clerk] (whose duty it is in such cases to put personal and painful questions) inquired minutely into the domestic differences that led to the application.
"The young woman complained that her spouse was cruel to her, and she was so harassed that she would require a separate maintenance.
"Mr. Spencely assured her that she could not proceed for separate maintenance without first moving the poor law authorities, and suggested the advisability of contenting herself with a [court] summons against the husband; but she insisted on a warrant, and prayed the bench to grant it.
"Supt. Ludlam now rose up and asked her if, after being put out of her house by her husband, she had revenged herself by breaking the windows.
"To this question she replied in the affirmative, and immediately every chance she had of a warrant vanished into thin air.
"She left the court with her mother, and both talked so freely of their wrongs that one could wish the husband [to be] at a safe distance – for his own sake."
The contract to build the new St Helens Town Hall in what was then Cotham Street had gone to a chap called Thomas Urmson.
At the quarterly meeting of St Helens Town Council on the 7th it was revealed that the Liverpool master builder was having financial trouble.
Sub-contractors were undertaking some of the work and they wanted advance payments in order to buy materials etc.
That was something Urmson had not seemingly bargained for and so he had asked the council for a 6½% advance on his £28,000 fee so that he could make similar payments to the sub-contracted firms.
The council's Improvement Committee had told the man that he must stick to his contract and threatened to ask all the firms who'd tendered to build the Town Hall to resubmit their bids.
The full council meeting confirmed this bluff calling and the ball was now firmly in Urmson's court.
St Helens' firms had been dumping their effluent into the waterway many decades before.
All that changed over time was that different factories and industries polluted the brook with chemical firms (such as the Kurtz plant pictured above) being the main villains during the 1870s.
They committed two types of ground-based pollution. One was the deliberate act of expelling their effluent into the waterway and the other was dumping chemical waste heaps near to the brook. Drainage was then permitted to run off the heaps into the water.
At the council meeting Cllr. Bishop called for action to stop the second type of contamination.
However, there was a third type of pollutant from chemical firms – suphuretted hydrogen (known these days as hydrogen sulphide) – which was being transmitted into the atmosphere which Cllr. Allen argued was "the great enemy to health".
In truth all three forms (and many others) were highly injurious to St Helens folk.
However, Cllr. Allen moved that the council's newly appointed medical officer be instructed to look solely into the effects of suphuretted hydrogen in the air and report back to the council and his amendment was adopted.
Divorces were so expensive and came with such stigma that they were few and far between.
On the 6th the case of Lord vs. Lord was heard in which a wife accused her husband of adultery and cruelty. The couple had married at Prescot Parish Church in February 1869.
At the time the woman possessed some property but that automatically passed to the husband upon their wedding.
Mrs Lord told the court that her husband was in the habit of getting drunk and beating her and their servants gave evidence supporting her claim.
Mr Lord was also accused of committing adultery while the couple were living at Whiston and after hearing the evidence the judge granted a decree nisi.
In St Helens Petty Sessions on the 6th, Catherine Donoghue had a very lucky break.
Peter McKinley – who was described as a dealer in smallware – had employed the young woman as a shop assistant.
From his premises in Birmingham House in Bridge Street in St Helens he sold all sorts of fancy goods and small articles, which because of their size could easily be spirited away.
When police searched Catherine's lodgings they found a number of stolen items, including nearly 100 pairs of kid gloves that had been hidden in the bedding underneath her sick mother.
The head of St Helens police, James Ludlam, told the magistrates that Mr McKinley had decided not to prosecute the woman and so he requested a discharge from the court.
Probably it was Catherine's circumstances with a sickly mum that led to McKinley's generous decision, as the young woman could have expected to be sent to prison for her thefts.
St Helens Newspaper courtesy St Helens Archive Service at Eccleston Library
Next week's stories will include the man that beat his wife black and blue for associating with neighbours, the drunken man at the chemical works that nearly caused an explosion and the small number of patients at the new Cottage Hospital.