150 YEARS AGO THIS WEEK (7th - 13th MARCH 1872)
This week's stories include the Rainhill apprentice that was badly beaten by his boss, the blackface troupe at the Volunteer Hall, the dominoes dispute in a Croppers Hill beerhouse, the Whiston boy accused of using abominable language and the pauper who tore up his clothes in Whiston Workhouse.
We begin with the tobacco pipemakers of Rainford. Last month at a meeting in the Saddle Inn (near the Derby Arms), it had been decided that they would all give notice to their "masters" for a 10% wage rise. The employers chose to stand firm against the demand and so on the 9th the men and boy workers all went on strike.
Also in Rainford, things appeared to be going from bad to worse for the Haddock family. Last week I stated that James Haddock had been charged with assaulting his wife Harriet at their home in Chapel Lane in Rainford – as Church Road used to be called. Harriet claimed that the 33-year-old wheelwright had not been sober for two years and he was ordered to find sureties to keep the peace.
In the St Helens Newspaper on the 9th, an auction of the man's possessions was advertised to take place in three days time. It appeared to be a forced sale of many household items, as well as wheelwright's tools and timber. That might raise some cash to solve the man's immediate problems but would seemingly leave him without the tools to earn a living.
The paper also reported that William Mather had been killed at St Helens Colliery. The 17-year-old had been about to finish work down Pilkington's mine and was pushing his last wagon of coal when a rope broke. That led to William being crushed and run over.
The body of Mary Fairhurst was also discovered this week floating in a town centre brook. The 66-year-old housekeeper from Peasley Cross had been seen drunk in Church Street and then shortly afterwards a lad said he saw her sat on the bank of the brook by the St Helens Gas Works. Nothing further was known of her movements until her body was found.
Six weeks ago longstanding railway guard James Ramsdale had been "literally cut to pieces" near to St Helens station. The 36-year-old had been hugely popular and this week it was announced that subscribers to a fund for the benefit of Ramsdale's wife and children had so far contributed £258. That was a huge amount with the guard from Shaw Street probably earning no more than 20 shillings a week. The fund's final figure would be £307.
The people of St Helens – in particular those who were better off – could certainly rise to the occasion when it suited them and be most generous. However, the vast majority of dependents of those killed while doing their job received nothing either as compensation or in the form of charity.
On the 11th the plans for the new St Helens Town Hall were made open for public inspection. It was not a consultation, as we know it – more of an opportunity to be impressed by the grandeur of the proposed new building. However, some were far from impressed with the price tag that came with the new municipal centre that would have to be funded from the rates – and a public push-back would soon begin.
Matthews Brothers 'Troupe Of Christy Minstrels' performed at the Volunteer Hall in Mill Street in St Helens on the 11th. This was one of several blackface troupes that claimed to be the original Minstrels, with each having one or two former members of the original troupe within their ranks.
You often had a good idea when 19th century concerts would end if the better class of patron were expected. That was because they needed to arrange in advance their collection from the hall by a servant or cab driver. So adverts for such events would state: "Carriages may be ordered for such-a-time", which in the case of the blackface minstrel show was 10 pm. Ticket prices cost from a tanner at the rear of the hall to half-a-crown at the front – which was a fair sum them. With no amplification for artistes in the 19th century, the poor at the back (especially the deaf poor) had to hope that the vocalists knew how to sing really loud!
It only cost five or six shillings for somebody to take out a summons against a neighbour who in court they accused of committing violent and verbal shenanigans against them. In their minds they themselves were blameless victims seeking justice – but in court discovered the defendant did not meekly accept responsibility for their actions but forcefully expressed their own version of what had occurred. That was the case in Prescot Petty Sessions this week when Ellen Heyes of Church Row in Whiston summoned neighbour John Gannon accusing the lad of slanderous and defamatory language.
According to the 1871 census, Ellen was about 29 and John only sixteen. The woman told the court that "language of an abominable description, unfit to be repeated" had been used without any provocation "whatever" by herself. Ellen's sister-in-law supported her testimony. She told the court that John Gannon had made accusations of gross immorality and even claimed that the woman had murdered her father. The witness agreed that there had not been any provocation – but did add, seemingly fleetingly, that there had been a previous quarrel with John's mother, Bridget.
However, when the lad was sworn he claimed that Ellen had showered foul names on his mother and he had only "interfered in the interests of peace". John Gannon claimed that the woman had used very indecent language towards him and he had simply retorted. His mother then told the court that Mrs Heyes had begun the quarrel by using shocking language towards her. The Bench decided to convict the boy but entered him into his own recognisances for a month – essentially promising to behave himself.
Also in court was toolmaker Henry Sherwood from Holt Lane in Rainhill who was summoned for assaulting a boy. In the 1871 census the man is listed as a file cutter, with 13-year-old William Daniels employed as his live-in apprentice. Whiston Workhouse had placed the boy with Sherwood and William told the court that he was made to work from 6 o’clock in the morning until 10 to 11 at night. William had been given what was called a thrashing for making files that were rough and his employer had privately acknowledged that the chastisement had been "severe".
The making of inferior work appeared to have been simply an accidental occurrence by a young lad learning the trade – rather than anything malicious. After receiving his thrashing, William sneaked off from his work to complain to officials of the workhouse who were shocked by the severity of his injuries. They took the boy back into the workhouse and issued the summons against Sherwood.
The Clerk to the Prescot Board of Guardians, who ran Whiston Workhouse (pictured above), said William had been apprenticed to Sherwood in May 1870 and he was then one of the best and most intelligent boys that they had. When he returned to the workhouse after his beating, they found 18 or 20 marks on his body, which had evidently been given by a stick. During his whole connection of nearly 20 years with the Guardians, Thomas Martin said he had never seen one of the apprentice boys so badly marked.
However, Sherwood's solicitor, Thomas Swift, told the court that it was absurd to complain about the nature of the assault. Even though it had been committed just six days earlier, there was not a single mark remaining on the boy's body. He submitted that no more chastisement had been administered than the master was legitimately entitled to give to his apprentice for producing shoddy work.
Swift also said the boy's healthy appearance refuted the charge of having been overworked. However, the Chairman of the Bench declared that Sherwood would be fined 20 shillings and costs. The master file-cutter had, he said, exceeded his authority, although the assault was not as severe as the boy and the Guardian's clerk had made out. The conviction angered the solicitor Swift. He complained that the Bench was sending a message to boys – and workhouse boys in particular – that they could spoil their masters' work to any extent they pleased.
As William Daniels returned to live in the workhouse, so a pauper called William Birchall left it – but only for a month. That was the period in Kirkdale Gaol that was imposed on him in Prescot Petty Sessions. Birchall had refused to work in the workhouse and so as punishment was placed in solitary confinement. In revenge he tore his clothing "to pieces" and as the clothes belonged to the institution, that was considered a criminal offence and worthy of prison time.
There were more black artistes performing this week at the St Helens Theatre Royal Concert Hall on the corner of Milk Street and Waterloo Street. The acts on the bill were described as: Mr and Mrs Thomas Hibbs ("Very clever negro delineators"); Miss Jennie Cleveland ("Ballad singer"); Mr Tom Ward ("Negro comedian and clog dancer"); Sisters Vining ("Burlesque singers – brisk and clever duetic performances") and Mr W. H. Morgan ("An exceedingly versatile and clever comic – his patter songs create roars of laughter").
People had a habit of bringing all sorts of objects as evidence into court to try and prove their claims of assault. In one case in 1869 the St Helens Newspaper had written: "As is usual in these cases, some pieces of pavement, a few pokers, and a great quantity of human hair, were produced, to create effect, and the most blood-stained stories told of each."
Of course, proving that such items brought into court had genuinely figured in some way in an assault could be open to challenge. This week in St Helens Petty Sessions when Thomas Abbott was charged with assaulting John Crane, the complainant thought a tooth that supposedly had been knocked out of Crane's mouth was a fake. This is how the Newspaper described the case:
"The parties were playing dominoes in Houghton's beerhouse, Combshop-brow [Croppers Hill]. When the game was over, complainant lifted the stakes, under the impression that he had won, whereupon defendant struck him twice on the jaw, knocking out one of his teeth. In reply to Superintendent Ludlam, the complainant said there were five or six games played.
"The defendant denied that he had played in any of the games, and repudiated the tooth produced as spurious. He said he did not hit the defendant on the occasion in question, and the tooth must have been an old preserved one brought out for the occasion. (Laughter.) William Fillingham, a witness for the defence, denied both the dominoes and the blows, and Samuel Walker did the same. The case was dismissed."
Next week's stories will include the savage assault in Park Road, the window-breaking lodger of Parr, the four-year-old performing at the Theatre Royal, the police swoop on a Water Street temperance hotel and the Rainhill man that a magistrate called wicked.
We begin with the tobacco pipemakers of Rainford. Last month at a meeting in the Saddle Inn (near the Derby Arms), it had been decided that they would all give notice to their "masters" for a 10% wage rise. The employers chose to stand firm against the demand and so on the 9th the men and boy workers all went on strike.
Also in Rainford, things appeared to be going from bad to worse for the Haddock family. Last week I stated that James Haddock had been charged with assaulting his wife Harriet at their home in Chapel Lane in Rainford – as Church Road used to be called. Harriet claimed that the 33-year-old wheelwright had not been sober for two years and he was ordered to find sureties to keep the peace.
In the St Helens Newspaper on the 9th, an auction of the man's possessions was advertised to take place in three days time. It appeared to be a forced sale of many household items, as well as wheelwright's tools and timber. That might raise some cash to solve the man's immediate problems but would seemingly leave him without the tools to earn a living.
The paper also reported that William Mather had been killed at St Helens Colliery. The 17-year-old had been about to finish work down Pilkington's mine and was pushing his last wagon of coal when a rope broke. That led to William being crushed and run over.
The body of Mary Fairhurst was also discovered this week floating in a town centre brook. The 66-year-old housekeeper from Peasley Cross had been seen drunk in Church Street and then shortly afterwards a lad said he saw her sat on the bank of the brook by the St Helens Gas Works. Nothing further was known of her movements until her body was found.
Six weeks ago longstanding railway guard James Ramsdale had been "literally cut to pieces" near to St Helens station. The 36-year-old had been hugely popular and this week it was announced that subscribers to a fund for the benefit of Ramsdale's wife and children had so far contributed £258. That was a huge amount with the guard from Shaw Street probably earning no more than 20 shillings a week. The fund's final figure would be £307.
The people of St Helens – in particular those who were better off – could certainly rise to the occasion when it suited them and be most generous. However, the vast majority of dependents of those killed while doing their job received nothing either as compensation or in the form of charity.
On the 11th the plans for the new St Helens Town Hall were made open for public inspection. It was not a consultation, as we know it – more of an opportunity to be impressed by the grandeur of the proposed new building. However, some were far from impressed with the price tag that came with the new municipal centre that would have to be funded from the rates – and a public push-back would soon begin.
Matthews Brothers 'Troupe Of Christy Minstrels' performed at the Volunteer Hall in Mill Street in St Helens on the 11th. This was one of several blackface troupes that claimed to be the original Minstrels, with each having one or two former members of the original troupe within their ranks.
You often had a good idea when 19th century concerts would end if the better class of patron were expected. That was because they needed to arrange in advance their collection from the hall by a servant or cab driver. So adverts for such events would state: "Carriages may be ordered for such-a-time", which in the case of the blackface minstrel show was 10 pm. Ticket prices cost from a tanner at the rear of the hall to half-a-crown at the front – which was a fair sum them. With no amplification for artistes in the 19th century, the poor at the back (especially the deaf poor) had to hope that the vocalists knew how to sing really loud!
It only cost five or six shillings for somebody to take out a summons against a neighbour who in court they accused of committing violent and verbal shenanigans against them. In their minds they themselves were blameless victims seeking justice – but in court discovered the defendant did not meekly accept responsibility for their actions but forcefully expressed their own version of what had occurred. That was the case in Prescot Petty Sessions this week when Ellen Heyes of Church Row in Whiston summoned neighbour John Gannon accusing the lad of slanderous and defamatory language.
According to the 1871 census, Ellen was about 29 and John only sixteen. The woman told the court that "language of an abominable description, unfit to be repeated" had been used without any provocation "whatever" by herself. Ellen's sister-in-law supported her testimony. She told the court that John Gannon had made accusations of gross immorality and even claimed that the woman had murdered her father. The witness agreed that there had not been any provocation – but did add, seemingly fleetingly, that there had been a previous quarrel with John's mother, Bridget.
However, when the lad was sworn he claimed that Ellen had showered foul names on his mother and he had only "interfered in the interests of peace". John Gannon claimed that the woman had used very indecent language towards him and he had simply retorted. His mother then told the court that Mrs Heyes had begun the quarrel by using shocking language towards her. The Bench decided to convict the boy but entered him into his own recognisances for a month – essentially promising to behave himself.
Also in court was toolmaker Henry Sherwood from Holt Lane in Rainhill who was summoned for assaulting a boy. In the 1871 census the man is listed as a file cutter, with 13-year-old William Daniels employed as his live-in apprentice. Whiston Workhouse had placed the boy with Sherwood and William told the court that he was made to work from 6 o’clock in the morning until 10 to 11 at night. William had been given what was called a thrashing for making files that were rough and his employer had privately acknowledged that the chastisement had been "severe".
The making of inferior work appeared to have been simply an accidental occurrence by a young lad learning the trade – rather than anything malicious. After receiving his thrashing, William sneaked off from his work to complain to officials of the workhouse who were shocked by the severity of his injuries. They took the boy back into the workhouse and issued the summons against Sherwood.
However, Sherwood's solicitor, Thomas Swift, told the court that it was absurd to complain about the nature of the assault. Even though it had been committed just six days earlier, there was not a single mark remaining on the boy's body. He submitted that no more chastisement had been administered than the master was legitimately entitled to give to his apprentice for producing shoddy work.
Swift also said the boy's healthy appearance refuted the charge of having been overworked. However, the Chairman of the Bench declared that Sherwood would be fined 20 shillings and costs. The master file-cutter had, he said, exceeded his authority, although the assault was not as severe as the boy and the Guardian's clerk had made out. The conviction angered the solicitor Swift. He complained that the Bench was sending a message to boys – and workhouse boys in particular – that they could spoil their masters' work to any extent they pleased.
As William Daniels returned to live in the workhouse, so a pauper called William Birchall left it – but only for a month. That was the period in Kirkdale Gaol that was imposed on him in Prescot Petty Sessions. Birchall had refused to work in the workhouse and so as punishment was placed in solitary confinement. In revenge he tore his clothing "to pieces" and as the clothes belonged to the institution, that was considered a criminal offence and worthy of prison time.
There were more black artistes performing this week at the St Helens Theatre Royal Concert Hall on the corner of Milk Street and Waterloo Street. The acts on the bill were described as: Mr and Mrs Thomas Hibbs ("Very clever negro delineators"); Miss Jennie Cleveland ("Ballad singer"); Mr Tom Ward ("Negro comedian and clog dancer"); Sisters Vining ("Burlesque singers – brisk and clever duetic performances") and Mr W. H. Morgan ("An exceedingly versatile and clever comic – his patter songs create roars of laughter").
People had a habit of bringing all sorts of objects as evidence into court to try and prove their claims of assault. In one case in 1869 the St Helens Newspaper had written: "As is usual in these cases, some pieces of pavement, a few pokers, and a great quantity of human hair, were produced, to create effect, and the most blood-stained stories told of each."
Of course, proving that such items brought into court had genuinely figured in some way in an assault could be open to challenge. This week in St Helens Petty Sessions when Thomas Abbott was charged with assaulting John Crane, the complainant thought a tooth that supposedly had been knocked out of Crane's mouth was a fake. This is how the Newspaper described the case:
"The parties were playing dominoes in Houghton's beerhouse, Combshop-brow [Croppers Hill]. When the game was over, complainant lifted the stakes, under the impression that he had won, whereupon defendant struck him twice on the jaw, knocking out one of his teeth. In reply to Superintendent Ludlam, the complainant said there were five or six games played.
"The defendant denied that he had played in any of the games, and repudiated the tooth produced as spurious. He said he did not hit the defendant on the occasion in question, and the tooth must have been an old preserved one brought out for the occasion. (Laughter.) William Fillingham, a witness for the defence, denied both the dominoes and the blows, and Samuel Walker did the same. The case was dismissed."
Next week's stories will include the savage assault in Park Road, the window-breaking lodger of Parr, the four-year-old performing at the Theatre Royal, the police swoop on a Water Street temperance hotel and the Rainhill man that a magistrate called wicked.
This week's stories include the Rainhill apprentice that was badly beaten by his boss, the blackface troupe at the Volunteer Hall, the dominoes dispute in a Croppers Hill beerhouse, the Whiston boy accused of using abominable language and the pauper who tore up his clothes in Whiston Workhouse.
We begin with the tobacco pipemakers of Rainford. Last month at a meeting in the Saddle Inn (near the Derby Arms), it had been decided that they would all give notice to their "masters" for a 10% wage rise.
The employers chose to stand firm against the demand and so on the 9th the men and boy workers all went on strike.
Also in Rainford, things appeared to be going from bad to worse for the Haddock family.
Last week I stated that James Haddock had been charged with assaulting his wife Harriet at their home in Chapel Lane in Rainford – as Church Road used to be called.
Harriet claimed that the 33-year-old wheelwright had not been sober for two years and he was ordered to find sureties to keep the peace.
In the St Helens Newspaper on the 9th, an auction of the man's possessions was advertised to take place in three days time.
It appeared to be a forced sale of many household items, as well as wheelwright's tools and timber.
That might raise some cash to solve the man's immediate problems but would seemingly leave him without the tools to earn a living.
The paper also reported that William Mather had been killed at St Helens Colliery.
The 17-year-old had been about to finish work down Pilkington's mine and was pushing his last wagon of coal when a rope broke. That led to William being crushed and run over.
The body of Mary Fairhurst was also discovered this week floating in a town centre brook.
The 66-year-old housekeeper from Peasley Cross had been seen drunk in Church Street and then shortly afterwards a lad said he saw her sat on the bank of the brook by the St Helens Gas Works.
Nothing further was known of her movements until her body was found.
Six weeks ago longstanding railway guard James Ramsdale had been "literally cut to pieces" near to St Helens station.
The 36-year-old had been hugely popular and this week it was announced that subscribers to a fund for the benefit of Ramsdale's wife and children had so far contributed £258.
That was a huge amount with the guard from Shaw Street probably earning no more than 20 shillings a week. The fund's final figure would be £307.
The people of St Helens – in particular those who were better off – could certainly rise to the occasion when it suited them and be most generous.
However, the vast majority of dependents of those killed while doing their job received nothing either as compensation or in the form of charity.
On the 11th the plans for the new St Helens Town Hall were made open for public inspection.
It was not a consultation, as we know it – more of an opportunity to be impressed by the grandeur of the proposed new building.
However, some were far from impressed with the price tag that came with the new municipal centre that would have to be funded from the rates – and a public push-back would soon begin.
Matthews Brothers 'Troupe Of Christy Minstrels' performed at the Volunteer Hall in Mill Street in St Helens on the 11th.
This was one of several blackface troupes that claimed to be the original Minstrels, with each having one or two former members of the original troupe within their ranks.
You often had a good idea when 19th century concerts would end if the better class of patron were expected.
That was because they needed to arrange in advance their collection from the hall by a servant or cab driver.
So adverts for such events would state: "Carriages may be ordered for such-a-time", which in the case of the blackface minstrel show was 10 pm.
Ticket prices cost from a tanner at the rear of the hall to half-a-crown at the front – which was a fair sum them.
With no amplification for artistes in the 19th century, the poor at the back (especially the deaf poor) had to hope that the vocalists knew how to sing really loud!
It only cost five or six shillings for somebody to take out a summons against a neighbour who in court they accused of committing violent and verbal shenanigans against them.
In their minds they themselves were blameless victims seeking justice – but in court discovered the defendant did not meekly accept responsibility for their actions but forcefully expressed their own version of what had occurred.
That was the case in Prescot Petty Sessions this week when Ellen Heyes of Church Row in Whiston summoned neighbour John Gannon accusing the lad of slanderous and defamatory language.
According to the 1871 census, Ellen was about 29 and John only sixteen.
The woman told the court that "language of an abominable description, unfit to be repeated" had been used without any provocation "whatever" by herself.
Ellen's sister-in-law supported her testimony. She told the court that John Gannon had made accusations of gross immorality and even claimed that the woman had murdered her father.
The witness agreed that there had not been any provocation – but did add, seemingly fleetingly, that there had been a previous quarrel with John's mother, Bridget.
However, when the lad was sworn he claimed that Ellen had showered foul names on his mother and he had only "interfered in the interests of peace".
John Gannon claimed that the woman had used very indecent language towards him and he had simply retorted.
His mother then told the court that Mrs Heyes had begun the quarrel by using shocking language towards her.
The Bench decided to convict the boy but entered him into his own recognisances for a month – essentially promising to behave himself.
Also in court was toolmaker Henry Sherwood from Holt Lane in Rainhill who was summoned for assaulting a boy.
In the 1871 census the man is listed as a file cutter, with 13-year-old William Daniels employed as his live-in apprentice.
Whiston Workhouse had placed the boy with Sherwood and William told the court that he was made to work from 6 o’clock in the morning until 10 to 11 at night.
William had been given what was called a thrashing for making files that were rough and his employer had privately acknowledged that the chastisement had been "severe".
The making of inferior work appeared to have been simply an accidental occurrence by a young lad learning the trade – rather than anything malicious.
After receiving his thrashing, William sneaked off from his work to complain to officials of the workhouse who were shocked by the severity of his injuries.
They took the boy back into the workhouse and issued the summons against Sherwood.
The Clerk to the Prescot Board of Guardians, who ran Whiston Workhouse (pictured above), said William had been apprenticed to Sherwood in May 1870 and he was then one of the best and most intelligent boys that they had.
When he returned to the workhouse after his beating, they found 18 or 20 marks on his body, which had evidently been given by a stick.
During his whole connection of nearly 20 years with the Guardians, Thomas Martin said he had never seen one of the apprentice boys so badly marked.
However, Sherwood's solicitor, Thomas Swift, told the court that it was absurd to complain about the nature of the assault.
Even though it had been committed just six days earlier, there was not a single mark remaining on the boy's body.
He submitted that no more chastisement had been administered than the master was legitimately entitled to give to his apprentice for producing shoddy work.
Swift also said the boy's healthy appearance refuted the charge of having been overworked.
However, the Chairman of the Bench declared that Sherwood would be fined 20 shillings and costs.
The master file-cutter had, he said, exceeded his authority, although the assault was not as severe as the boy and the Guardian's clerk had made out.
The conviction angered the solicitor Swift. He complained that the Bench was sending a message to boys – and workhouse boys in particular – that they could spoil their masters' work to any extent they pleased.
As William Daniels returned to live in the workhouse, so a pauper called William Birchall left it – but only for a month.
That was the period in Kirkdale Gaol that was imposed on him in Prescot Petty Sessions.
Birchall had refused to work in the workhouse and so as punishment was placed in solitary confinement.
In revenge he tore his clothing "to pieces" and as the clothes belonged to the institution, that was considered a criminal offence and worthy of prison time.
There were more black artistes performing this week at the St Helens Theatre Royal Concert Hall on the corner of Milk Street and Waterloo Street. The acts on the bill were described as:
Mr and Mrs Thomas Hibbs ("Very clever negro delineators"); Miss Jennie Cleveland ("Ballad singer"); Mr Tom Ward ("Negro comedian and clog dancer"); Sisters Vining ("Burlesque singers – brisk and clever duetic performances") and Mr W. H. Morgan ("An exceedingly versatile and clever comic – his patter songs create roars of laughter").
People had a habit of bringing all sorts of objects as evidence into court to try and prove their claims of assault. In one case in 1869 the St Helens Newspaper had written:
"As is usual in these cases, some pieces of pavement, a few pokers, and a great quantity of human hair, were produced, to create effect, and the most blood-stained stories told of each."
Of course, proving that such items brought into court had genuinely figured in some way in an assault could be open to challenge.
This week in St Helens Petty Sessions when Thomas Abbott was charged with assaulting John Crane, the complainant thought a tooth that supposedly had been knocked out of Crane's mouth was a fake.
This is how the Newspaper described the case:
"The parties were playing dominoes in Houghton's beerhouse, Combshop-brow [Croppers Hill].
"When the game was over, complainant lifted the stakes, under the impression that he had won, whereupon defendant struck him twice on the jaw, knocking out one of his teeth.
"In reply to Superintendent Ludlam, the complainant said there were five or six games played.
"The defendant denied that he had played in any of the games, and repudiated the tooth produced as spurious.
"He said he did not hit the defendant on the occasion in question, and the tooth must have been an old preserved one brought out for the occasion. (Laughter.)
"William Fillingham, a witness for the defence, denied both the dominoes and the blows, and Samuel Walker did the same. The case was dismissed."
Next week's stories will include the savage assault in Park Road, the window-breaking lodger of Parr, the four-year-old performing at the Theatre Royal, the police swoop on a Water Street temperance hotel and the Rainhill man that a magistrate called wicked.
We begin with the tobacco pipemakers of Rainford. Last month at a meeting in the Saddle Inn (near the Derby Arms), it had been decided that they would all give notice to their "masters" for a 10% wage rise.
The employers chose to stand firm against the demand and so on the 9th the men and boy workers all went on strike.
Also in Rainford, things appeared to be going from bad to worse for the Haddock family.
Last week I stated that James Haddock had been charged with assaulting his wife Harriet at their home in Chapel Lane in Rainford – as Church Road used to be called.
Harriet claimed that the 33-year-old wheelwright had not been sober for two years and he was ordered to find sureties to keep the peace.
In the St Helens Newspaper on the 9th, an auction of the man's possessions was advertised to take place in three days time.
It appeared to be a forced sale of many household items, as well as wheelwright's tools and timber.
That might raise some cash to solve the man's immediate problems but would seemingly leave him without the tools to earn a living.
The paper also reported that William Mather had been killed at St Helens Colliery.
The 17-year-old had been about to finish work down Pilkington's mine and was pushing his last wagon of coal when a rope broke. That led to William being crushed and run over.
The body of Mary Fairhurst was also discovered this week floating in a town centre brook.
The 66-year-old housekeeper from Peasley Cross had been seen drunk in Church Street and then shortly afterwards a lad said he saw her sat on the bank of the brook by the St Helens Gas Works.
Nothing further was known of her movements until her body was found.
Six weeks ago longstanding railway guard James Ramsdale had been "literally cut to pieces" near to St Helens station.
The 36-year-old had been hugely popular and this week it was announced that subscribers to a fund for the benefit of Ramsdale's wife and children had so far contributed £258.
That was a huge amount with the guard from Shaw Street probably earning no more than 20 shillings a week. The fund's final figure would be £307.
The people of St Helens – in particular those who were better off – could certainly rise to the occasion when it suited them and be most generous.
However, the vast majority of dependents of those killed while doing their job received nothing either as compensation or in the form of charity.
On the 11th the plans for the new St Helens Town Hall were made open for public inspection.
It was not a consultation, as we know it – more of an opportunity to be impressed by the grandeur of the proposed new building.
However, some were far from impressed with the price tag that came with the new municipal centre that would have to be funded from the rates – and a public push-back would soon begin.
Matthews Brothers 'Troupe Of Christy Minstrels' performed at the Volunteer Hall in Mill Street in St Helens on the 11th.
This was one of several blackface troupes that claimed to be the original Minstrels, with each having one or two former members of the original troupe within their ranks.
You often had a good idea when 19th century concerts would end if the better class of patron were expected.
That was because they needed to arrange in advance their collection from the hall by a servant or cab driver.
So adverts for such events would state: "Carriages may be ordered for such-a-time", which in the case of the blackface minstrel show was 10 pm.
Ticket prices cost from a tanner at the rear of the hall to half-a-crown at the front – which was a fair sum them.
With no amplification for artistes in the 19th century, the poor at the back (especially the deaf poor) had to hope that the vocalists knew how to sing really loud!
It only cost five or six shillings for somebody to take out a summons against a neighbour who in court they accused of committing violent and verbal shenanigans against them.
In their minds they themselves were blameless victims seeking justice – but in court discovered the defendant did not meekly accept responsibility for their actions but forcefully expressed their own version of what had occurred.
That was the case in Prescot Petty Sessions this week when Ellen Heyes of Church Row in Whiston summoned neighbour John Gannon accusing the lad of slanderous and defamatory language.
According to the 1871 census, Ellen was about 29 and John only sixteen.
The woman told the court that "language of an abominable description, unfit to be repeated" had been used without any provocation "whatever" by herself.
Ellen's sister-in-law supported her testimony. She told the court that John Gannon had made accusations of gross immorality and even claimed that the woman had murdered her father.
The witness agreed that there had not been any provocation – but did add, seemingly fleetingly, that there had been a previous quarrel with John's mother, Bridget.
However, when the lad was sworn he claimed that Ellen had showered foul names on his mother and he had only "interfered in the interests of peace".
John Gannon claimed that the woman had used very indecent language towards him and he had simply retorted.
His mother then told the court that Mrs Heyes had begun the quarrel by using shocking language towards her.
The Bench decided to convict the boy but entered him into his own recognisances for a month – essentially promising to behave himself.
Also in court was toolmaker Henry Sherwood from Holt Lane in Rainhill who was summoned for assaulting a boy.
In the 1871 census the man is listed as a file cutter, with 13-year-old William Daniels employed as his live-in apprentice.
Whiston Workhouse had placed the boy with Sherwood and William told the court that he was made to work from 6 o’clock in the morning until 10 to 11 at night.
William had been given what was called a thrashing for making files that were rough and his employer had privately acknowledged that the chastisement had been "severe".
The making of inferior work appeared to have been simply an accidental occurrence by a young lad learning the trade – rather than anything malicious.
After receiving his thrashing, William sneaked off from his work to complain to officials of the workhouse who were shocked by the severity of his injuries.
They took the boy back into the workhouse and issued the summons against Sherwood.
When he returned to the workhouse after his beating, they found 18 or 20 marks on his body, which had evidently been given by a stick.
During his whole connection of nearly 20 years with the Guardians, Thomas Martin said he had never seen one of the apprentice boys so badly marked.
However, Sherwood's solicitor, Thomas Swift, told the court that it was absurd to complain about the nature of the assault.
Even though it had been committed just six days earlier, there was not a single mark remaining on the boy's body.
He submitted that no more chastisement had been administered than the master was legitimately entitled to give to his apprentice for producing shoddy work.
Swift also said the boy's healthy appearance refuted the charge of having been overworked.
However, the Chairman of the Bench declared that Sherwood would be fined 20 shillings and costs.
The master file-cutter had, he said, exceeded his authority, although the assault was not as severe as the boy and the Guardian's clerk had made out.
The conviction angered the solicitor Swift. He complained that the Bench was sending a message to boys – and workhouse boys in particular – that they could spoil their masters' work to any extent they pleased.
As William Daniels returned to live in the workhouse, so a pauper called William Birchall left it – but only for a month.
That was the period in Kirkdale Gaol that was imposed on him in Prescot Petty Sessions.
Birchall had refused to work in the workhouse and so as punishment was placed in solitary confinement.
In revenge he tore his clothing "to pieces" and as the clothes belonged to the institution, that was considered a criminal offence and worthy of prison time.
There were more black artistes performing this week at the St Helens Theatre Royal Concert Hall on the corner of Milk Street and Waterloo Street. The acts on the bill were described as:
Mr and Mrs Thomas Hibbs ("Very clever negro delineators"); Miss Jennie Cleveland ("Ballad singer"); Mr Tom Ward ("Negro comedian and clog dancer"); Sisters Vining ("Burlesque singers – brisk and clever duetic performances") and Mr W. H. Morgan ("An exceedingly versatile and clever comic – his patter songs create roars of laughter").
People had a habit of bringing all sorts of objects as evidence into court to try and prove their claims of assault. In one case in 1869 the St Helens Newspaper had written:
"As is usual in these cases, some pieces of pavement, a few pokers, and a great quantity of human hair, were produced, to create effect, and the most blood-stained stories told of each."
Of course, proving that such items brought into court had genuinely figured in some way in an assault could be open to challenge.
This week in St Helens Petty Sessions when Thomas Abbott was charged with assaulting John Crane, the complainant thought a tooth that supposedly had been knocked out of Crane's mouth was a fake.
This is how the Newspaper described the case:
"The parties were playing dominoes in Houghton's beerhouse, Combshop-brow [Croppers Hill].
"When the game was over, complainant lifted the stakes, under the impression that he had won, whereupon defendant struck him twice on the jaw, knocking out one of his teeth.
"In reply to Superintendent Ludlam, the complainant said there were five or six games played.
"The defendant denied that he had played in any of the games, and repudiated the tooth produced as spurious.
"He said he did not hit the defendant on the occasion in question, and the tooth must have been an old preserved one brought out for the occasion. (Laughter.)
"William Fillingham, a witness for the defence, denied both the dominoes and the blows, and Samuel Walker did the same. The case was dismissed."
Next week's stories will include the savage assault in Park Road, the window-breaking lodger of Parr, the four-year-old performing at the Theatre Royal, the police swoop on a Water Street temperance hotel and the Rainhill man that a magistrate called wicked.