150 YEARS AGO THIS WEEK (7th - 13th SEPTEMBER 1870)
This week's stories include the Pilkington striker who was accused of being a "snake in the grass", the Prescot boy poked in the eye with an umbrella, the Liverpool Road painter's absent apprentice and the Rainford poster boy who threw stones at a train.
We start on the 7th when the monthly meeting of St Helens Town Council was held in which their members discussed the recent experiment to purify Sankey Brook. Two weeks ago the St Helens Newspaper had described the two-fold purpose of the trial in ameliorating "the evils of the Brook". The scheme would remove both the "horrible stench" and the acid nature of the water that led to the nearby canal works being damaged.
However the council meeting heard that the proposed scheme would cost around £8,000 and who should pay for it was a matter of debate. Should it be the ratepayers, the railway company that owned Sankey Brook or the companies that discharged their waste into the water? The latter seemed to have the most obvious culpability but how could these factories be made to pay? Answers to these questions were left for another day…
On the 8th a meeting of 170 Pilkington glassmakers was held at the White Lion in Church Street. The men were mainly glassblowers who had been on strike for five months after their "masters" announced that their wages were being slashed by over 20%. The reduction had been due to foreign competition, which was undercutting the prices of Pilks' glass. The meeting had been called to answer an anonymous letter from "A Glassmaker", which had been published in the St Helens Newspaper.
This had accused the strike committee of profiting from the dispute and not wanting it to end. The writer was referred to as a "snake in the grass" involved in "desperado letter-writing" which could endanger the financial support from the public that the strikers currently enjoyed. The committee were given the full support of the men, with the Newspaper writing that "perfect unanimity prevailed".
The Prescot Board of Guardians met at Whiston during the same morning and discussed the need for more girls' shoes for the workhouse (pictured above). All new inmates had their clothes removed upon admission and were given standard workhouse clothing to wear. This was just like prisoners in jail, which essentially they were, as no one could leave the workhouse without permission. The Master of the institution requested four-dozen shoes, costing 2s 9d per pair but one Guardian wondered whether the inmates could make them cheaper. The Guardians' Clerk said one of the workhouse men did repair shoes but he didn't think they could be made in-house at a better price.
All inmates were expected to work for their keep but some were given employment out of the workhouse. The Workhouse Committee wanted it advertised to farmers that they had boys aged 12 to 14 available to work on their farms.
The St Helens Petty Sessions were held on the 12th and Enoch Leach from Liverpool Road summoned Patrick Dunn for leaving his employment. The boy was an apprentice of the plumber and painter but had not been to work since the previous week. Bound apprentices were (as the name suggests) contractually tied to their employer until they turned 21 and obtained their indentures. It was a harsh agreement for very low pay.
If youths didn't go to work, they would initially receive a warning from their employer. If that didn't work then they would be put in front of the magistrates and warned again. The final sanction would be to return to court and be given a short prison sentence of around 7 to 14 days. Patrick did not initially appear at the court as his master told the Bench that the boy was regularly disappearing and was worth one shilling per day to him. "I wish him to come back to his work and to be made to keep his contract", added Mr Leach.
A warrant was issued for the boy's arrest and he was brought to the court with his mother who said her son was willing to return to his job. The Chairman of the Bench told Patrick to pay the court costs and warned his mother that she must keep him at his job or else he would be sent to prison.
There were different levels of justice depending on your social status. Thomas Wright was charged with assaulting a Peasley Cross greengrocer called James Smith. Smith said Wright had used bad language to him and said if he ever saw him go past his house in future, he would never again see his wife and family. The Bench said it was a shame to see two respectable men in that position, adding: "You had better shake hands and make it up" and dismissed the case. Similar rows between semi-literate labourers would usually be resolved by bounding one (or both) over to keep the peace. That was often with unaffordable sureties tagged on, so that prison time had to be served.
People could give strange excuses in court. A part-time soldier from Queen Street, near North Road, claimed he'd shot his neighbour's hen in order to make his gun safe. This is how the case was reported:
"George Cox, a volunteer, was charged with discharging firearms in his back yard. He pleaded guilty. A witness said she went upstairs to clean himself before going to church when he heard two shots let off. He looked out and saw Cox in his own yard. With one of the shots he knocked a hen of mine down. It was not dead, but we had to kill it afterwards. The prisoner, in defence, said he had been at the review and his rifle was loaded; he only discharged it to render it safe in the house. Fined 1s and costs and 2s 6d for the witness."
Richard Platt from Bushey Lane in Rainford was charged with throwing stones at a train, which smashed a window in the brake van. The nine-year-old admitted the offence and his punishment – mainly his father's – was somewhat unusual. The wheelwright agreed to pay for the damage to the window, the costs of the hearing and also to cough up for posters to be printed warning other boys of the dangers of throwing stones. The father also agreed to "correct the boy" – that's where Richard's punishment came in. Ouch!
A farm labourer called James Swift was summoned to the Sessions to show cause why he should not pay for his wife's maintenance in Rainhill Asylum. The man pleaded inability to pay, saying he worked on his mother's farm as a labourer. For a short time he received 15 shillings per week but now he said he was paid nothing, as his mother kept both him and his child. The parish Relieving Officer wanted 8s 9d per week off Swift, describing the man as "respectably connected". The magistrates said he must pay or go to gaol and Swift replied that he would have to choose prison – although perhaps his mother ultimately saved him from that fate.
St Helens County Court (pictured above) had been built in 1867 in East Street, which used to be near the market. On the 13th the court delivered judgement in the case of Thomas Hornby vs William Kay and his wife. In July I reported on the fawning reception that locals had given Lord Derby upon his return to Knowsley Hall with his new bride.
On that day Mr and Mrs Kay were in their trap driving to Knowsley with some friends when 12-year-old Thomas Hornby ran behind them. The Prescot watchmaker's son playfully grabbed hold of the rear of their trap and in attempting to fend him off, Mrs Kay accidentally poked Tom in the eye with her umbrella. Ouch, again!
At the previous hearing it had been stated that the boy's eyelid was seriously injured and he was unable to lift it without surgery. Tom through his father was seeking £25 in compensation, presumably to fund an operation. In delivering his judgement Judge Blair said he felt sorry for Tom but did consider that his disfigurement as described in the courtroom had been a bit exaggerated.
Also the boy had brought the injury upon himself and as a result there was no ground for compensation. Tom had committed a trespass on the trap and its occupants had every right to use all legal means to stop him and could not have foreseen such a serious injury from so light an instrument as an umbrella.
Next week's stories will include the Pilkington striker who tried to throw a strike breaker off a Westfield Street bridge, the man who thought the dead were burying the dead and the formation of a new temperance movement in St Helens.
We start on the 7th when the monthly meeting of St Helens Town Council was held in which their members discussed the recent experiment to purify Sankey Brook. Two weeks ago the St Helens Newspaper had described the two-fold purpose of the trial in ameliorating "the evils of the Brook". The scheme would remove both the "horrible stench" and the acid nature of the water that led to the nearby canal works being damaged.
However the council meeting heard that the proposed scheme would cost around £8,000 and who should pay for it was a matter of debate. Should it be the ratepayers, the railway company that owned Sankey Brook or the companies that discharged their waste into the water? The latter seemed to have the most obvious culpability but how could these factories be made to pay? Answers to these questions were left for another day…
On the 8th a meeting of 170 Pilkington glassmakers was held at the White Lion in Church Street. The men were mainly glassblowers who had been on strike for five months after their "masters" announced that their wages were being slashed by over 20%. The reduction had been due to foreign competition, which was undercutting the prices of Pilks' glass. The meeting had been called to answer an anonymous letter from "A Glassmaker", which had been published in the St Helens Newspaper.
This had accused the strike committee of profiting from the dispute and not wanting it to end. The writer was referred to as a "snake in the grass" involved in "desperado letter-writing" which could endanger the financial support from the public that the strikers currently enjoyed. The committee were given the full support of the men, with the Newspaper writing that "perfect unanimity prevailed".
All inmates were expected to work for their keep but some were given employment out of the workhouse. The Workhouse Committee wanted it advertised to farmers that they had boys aged 12 to 14 available to work on their farms.
The St Helens Petty Sessions were held on the 12th and Enoch Leach from Liverpool Road summoned Patrick Dunn for leaving his employment. The boy was an apprentice of the plumber and painter but had not been to work since the previous week. Bound apprentices were (as the name suggests) contractually tied to their employer until they turned 21 and obtained their indentures. It was a harsh agreement for very low pay.
If youths didn't go to work, they would initially receive a warning from their employer. If that didn't work then they would be put in front of the magistrates and warned again. The final sanction would be to return to court and be given a short prison sentence of around 7 to 14 days. Patrick did not initially appear at the court as his master told the Bench that the boy was regularly disappearing and was worth one shilling per day to him. "I wish him to come back to his work and to be made to keep his contract", added Mr Leach.
A warrant was issued for the boy's arrest and he was brought to the court with his mother who said her son was willing to return to his job. The Chairman of the Bench told Patrick to pay the court costs and warned his mother that she must keep him at his job or else he would be sent to prison.
There were different levels of justice depending on your social status. Thomas Wright was charged with assaulting a Peasley Cross greengrocer called James Smith. Smith said Wright had used bad language to him and said if he ever saw him go past his house in future, he would never again see his wife and family. The Bench said it was a shame to see two respectable men in that position, adding: "You had better shake hands and make it up" and dismissed the case. Similar rows between semi-literate labourers would usually be resolved by bounding one (or both) over to keep the peace. That was often with unaffordable sureties tagged on, so that prison time had to be served.
People could give strange excuses in court. A part-time soldier from Queen Street, near North Road, claimed he'd shot his neighbour's hen in order to make his gun safe. This is how the case was reported:
"George Cox, a volunteer, was charged with discharging firearms in his back yard. He pleaded guilty. A witness said she went upstairs to clean himself before going to church when he heard two shots let off. He looked out and saw Cox in his own yard. With one of the shots he knocked a hen of mine down. It was not dead, but we had to kill it afterwards. The prisoner, in defence, said he had been at the review and his rifle was loaded; he only discharged it to render it safe in the house. Fined 1s and costs and 2s 6d for the witness."
Richard Platt from Bushey Lane in Rainford was charged with throwing stones at a train, which smashed a window in the brake van. The nine-year-old admitted the offence and his punishment – mainly his father's – was somewhat unusual. The wheelwright agreed to pay for the damage to the window, the costs of the hearing and also to cough up for posters to be printed warning other boys of the dangers of throwing stones. The father also agreed to "correct the boy" – that's where Richard's punishment came in. Ouch!
A farm labourer called James Swift was summoned to the Sessions to show cause why he should not pay for his wife's maintenance in Rainhill Asylum. The man pleaded inability to pay, saying he worked on his mother's farm as a labourer. For a short time he received 15 shillings per week but now he said he was paid nothing, as his mother kept both him and his child. The parish Relieving Officer wanted 8s 9d per week off Swift, describing the man as "respectably connected". The magistrates said he must pay or go to gaol and Swift replied that he would have to choose prison – although perhaps his mother ultimately saved him from that fate.
On that day Mr and Mrs Kay were in their trap driving to Knowsley with some friends when 12-year-old Thomas Hornby ran behind them. The Prescot watchmaker's son playfully grabbed hold of the rear of their trap and in attempting to fend him off, Mrs Kay accidentally poked Tom in the eye with her umbrella. Ouch, again!
At the previous hearing it had been stated that the boy's eyelid was seriously injured and he was unable to lift it without surgery. Tom through his father was seeking £25 in compensation, presumably to fund an operation. In delivering his judgement Judge Blair said he felt sorry for Tom but did consider that his disfigurement as described in the courtroom had been a bit exaggerated.
Also the boy had brought the injury upon himself and as a result there was no ground for compensation. Tom had committed a trespass on the trap and its occupants had every right to use all legal means to stop him and could not have foreseen such a serious injury from so light an instrument as an umbrella.
Next week's stories will include the Pilkington striker who tried to throw a strike breaker off a Westfield Street bridge, the man who thought the dead were burying the dead and the formation of a new temperance movement in St Helens.
This week's stories include the Pilkington striker who was accused of being a "snake in the grass", the Prescot boy poked in the eye with an umbrella, the Liverpool Road painter's absent apprentice and the Rainford poster boy who threw stones at a train.
We start on the 7th when the monthly meeting of St Helens Town Council was held in which their members discussed the recent experiment to purify Sankey Brook.
Two weeks ago the St Helens Newspaper had described the two-fold purpose of the trial in ameliorating "the evils of the Brook".
The scheme would remove both the "horrible stench" and the acid nature of the water that led to the nearby canal works being damaged.
However the council meeting heard that the proposed scheme would cost around £8,000 and who should pay for it was a matter of debate.
Should it be the ratepayers, the railway company that owned Sankey Brook or the companies that discharged their waste into the water?
The latter seemed to have the most obvious culpability but how could these factories be made to pay? Answers to these questions were left for another day…
On the 8th a meeting of 170 Pilkington glassmakers was held at the White Lion in Church Street.
The men were mainly glassblowers who had been on strike for five months after their "masters" announced that their wages were being slashed by over 20%.
The reduction had been due to foreign competition, which was undercutting the prices of Pilks' glass.
The meeting had been called to answer an anonymous letter from "A Glassmaker", which had been published in the St Helens Newspaper.
This had accused the strike committee of profiting from the dispute and not wanting it to end.
The writer was referred to as a "snake in the grass" involved in "desperado letter-writing" which could endanger the financial support from the public that the strikers currently enjoyed.
The committee were given the full support of the men, with the Newspaper writing that "perfect unanimity prevailed".
The Prescot Board of Guardians met at Whiston during the same morning and discussed the need for more girls' shoes for the workhouse (pictured above).
All new inmates had their clothes removed upon admission and were given standard workhouse clothing to wear.
This was just like prisoners in jail, which essentially they were, as no one could leave the workhouse without permission.
The Master of the institution requested four-dozen shoes, costing 2s 9d per pair but one Guardian wondered whether the inmates could make them cheaper.
The Guardians' Clerk said one of the workhouse men did repair shoes but he didn't think they could be made in-house at a better price.
All inmates were expected to work for their keep but some were given employment out of the workhouse.
The Workhouse Committee wanted it advertised to farmers that they had boys aged 12 to 14 available to work on their farms.
The St Helens Petty Sessions were held on the 12th and Enoch Leach from Liverpool Road summoned Patrick Dunn for leaving his employment.
The boy was an apprentice of the plumber and painter but had not been to work since the previous week.
Bound apprentices were (as the name suggests) contractually tied to their employer until they turned 21 and obtained their indentures. It was a harsh agreement for very low pay.
If youths didn't go to work, they would initially receive a warning from their employer.
If that didn't work then they would be put in front of the magistrates and warned again.
The final sanction would be to return to court and be given a short prison sentence of around 7 to 14 days.
Patrick did not initially appear at the court as his master told the Bench that the boy was regularly disappearing and was worth one shilling per day to him.
"I wish him to come back to his work and to be made to keep his contract", added Mr Leach.
A warrant was issued for the boy's arrest and he was brought to the court with his mother who said her son was willing to return to his job.
The Chairman of the Bench told Patrick to pay the court costs and warned his mother that she must keep him at his job or else he would be sent to prison.
There were different levels of justice depending on your social status.
Thomas Wright was charged with assaulting a Peasley Cross greengrocer called James Smith.
Smith said Wright had used bad language to him and said if he ever saw him go past his house in future, he would never again see his wife and family.
The Bench said it was a shame to see two respectable men in that position, adding: "You had better shake hands and make it up" and dismissed the case.
Similar rows between semi-literate labourers would usually be resolved by bounding one (or both) over to keep the peace.
That was often with unaffordable sureties tagged on, so that prison time had to be served.
People could give strange excuses in court.
A part-time soldier from Queen Street, near North Road, claimed he'd shot his neighbour's hen in order to make his gun safe. This is how the case was reported:
"George Cox, a volunteer, was charged with discharging firearms in his back yard. He pleaded guilty. A witness said she went upstairs to clean himself before going to church when he heard two shots let off. He looked out and saw Cox in his own yard.
"With one of the shots he knocked a hen of mine down. It was not dead, but we had to kill it afterwards. The prisoner, in defence, said he had been at the review and his rifle was loaded; he only discharged it to render it safe in the house. Fined 1s and costs and 2s 6d for the witness."
Richard Platt from Bushey Lane in Rainford was charged with throwing stones at a train, which smashed a window in the brake van.
The nine-year-old admitted the offence and his punishment – mainly his father's – was somewhat unusual.
The wheelwright agreed to pay for the damage to the window, the costs of the hearing and also to cough up for posters to be printed warning other boys of the dangers of throwing stones.
The father also agreed to "correct the boy" – that's where Richard's punishment came in. Ouch!
A farm labourer called James Swift was summoned to the Sessions to show cause why he should not pay for his wife's maintenance in Rainhill Asylum.
The man pleaded inability to pay, saying he worked on his mother's farm as a labourer.
For a short time he received 15 shillings per week but now he said he was paid nothing, as his mother kept both him and his child.
The parish Relieving Officer wanted 8s 9d per week off Swift, describing the man as "respectably connected".
The magistrates said he must pay or go to gaol and Swift replied that he would have to choose prison – although perhaps his mother ultimately saved him from that fate.
St Helens County Court (pictured above) had been built in 1867 in East Street, which used to be near the market.
On the 13th the court delivered judgement in the case of Thomas Hornby vs William Kay and his wife.
In July I reported on the fawning reception that locals had given Lord Derby upon his return to Knowsley Hall with his new bride.
On that day Mr and Mrs Kay were in their trap driving to Knowsley with some friends when 12-year-old Thomas Hornby ran behind them.
The Prescot watchmaker's son playfully grabbed hold of the rear of their trap and in attempting to fend him off, Mrs Kay accidentally poked Tom in the eye with her umbrella. Ouch, again!
At the previous hearing it had been stated that the boy's eyelid was seriously injured and he was unable to lift it without surgery.
Tom through his father was seeking £25 in compensation, presumably to fund an operation.
In delivering his judgement Judge Blair said he felt sorry for Tom but did consider that his disfigurement as described in the courtroom had been a bit exaggerated.
Also the boy had brought the injury upon himself and as a result there was no ground for compensation.
Tom had committed a trespass on the trap and its occupants had every right to use all legal means to stop him and could not have foreseen such a serious injury from so light an instrument as an umbrella.
Next week's stories will include the Pilkington striker who tried to throw a strike breaker off a Westfield Street bridge, the man who thought the dead were burying the dead and the formation of a new temperance movement in St Helens.
We start on the 7th when the monthly meeting of St Helens Town Council was held in which their members discussed the recent experiment to purify Sankey Brook.
Two weeks ago the St Helens Newspaper had described the two-fold purpose of the trial in ameliorating "the evils of the Brook".
The scheme would remove both the "horrible stench" and the acid nature of the water that led to the nearby canal works being damaged.
However the council meeting heard that the proposed scheme would cost around £8,000 and who should pay for it was a matter of debate.
Should it be the ratepayers, the railway company that owned Sankey Brook or the companies that discharged their waste into the water?
The latter seemed to have the most obvious culpability but how could these factories be made to pay? Answers to these questions were left for another day…
On the 8th a meeting of 170 Pilkington glassmakers was held at the White Lion in Church Street.
The men were mainly glassblowers who had been on strike for five months after their "masters" announced that their wages were being slashed by over 20%.
The reduction had been due to foreign competition, which was undercutting the prices of Pilks' glass.
The meeting had been called to answer an anonymous letter from "A Glassmaker", which had been published in the St Helens Newspaper.
This had accused the strike committee of profiting from the dispute and not wanting it to end.
The writer was referred to as a "snake in the grass" involved in "desperado letter-writing" which could endanger the financial support from the public that the strikers currently enjoyed.
The committee were given the full support of the men, with the Newspaper writing that "perfect unanimity prevailed".
All new inmates had their clothes removed upon admission and were given standard workhouse clothing to wear.
This was just like prisoners in jail, which essentially they were, as no one could leave the workhouse without permission.
The Master of the institution requested four-dozen shoes, costing 2s 9d per pair but one Guardian wondered whether the inmates could make them cheaper.
The Guardians' Clerk said one of the workhouse men did repair shoes but he didn't think they could be made in-house at a better price.
All inmates were expected to work for their keep but some were given employment out of the workhouse.
The Workhouse Committee wanted it advertised to farmers that they had boys aged 12 to 14 available to work on their farms.
The St Helens Petty Sessions were held on the 12th and Enoch Leach from Liverpool Road summoned Patrick Dunn for leaving his employment.
The boy was an apprentice of the plumber and painter but had not been to work since the previous week.
Bound apprentices were (as the name suggests) contractually tied to their employer until they turned 21 and obtained their indentures. It was a harsh agreement for very low pay.
If youths didn't go to work, they would initially receive a warning from their employer.
If that didn't work then they would be put in front of the magistrates and warned again.
The final sanction would be to return to court and be given a short prison sentence of around 7 to 14 days.
Patrick did not initially appear at the court as his master told the Bench that the boy was regularly disappearing and was worth one shilling per day to him.
"I wish him to come back to his work and to be made to keep his contract", added Mr Leach.
A warrant was issued for the boy's arrest and he was brought to the court with his mother who said her son was willing to return to his job.
The Chairman of the Bench told Patrick to pay the court costs and warned his mother that she must keep him at his job or else he would be sent to prison.
There were different levels of justice depending on your social status.
Thomas Wright was charged with assaulting a Peasley Cross greengrocer called James Smith.
Smith said Wright had used bad language to him and said if he ever saw him go past his house in future, he would never again see his wife and family.
The Bench said it was a shame to see two respectable men in that position, adding: "You had better shake hands and make it up" and dismissed the case.
Similar rows between semi-literate labourers would usually be resolved by bounding one (or both) over to keep the peace.
That was often with unaffordable sureties tagged on, so that prison time had to be served.
People could give strange excuses in court.
A part-time soldier from Queen Street, near North Road, claimed he'd shot his neighbour's hen in order to make his gun safe. This is how the case was reported:
"George Cox, a volunteer, was charged with discharging firearms in his back yard. He pleaded guilty. A witness said she went upstairs to clean himself before going to church when he heard two shots let off. He looked out and saw Cox in his own yard.
"With one of the shots he knocked a hen of mine down. It was not dead, but we had to kill it afterwards. The prisoner, in defence, said he had been at the review and his rifle was loaded; he only discharged it to render it safe in the house. Fined 1s and costs and 2s 6d for the witness."
Richard Platt from Bushey Lane in Rainford was charged with throwing stones at a train, which smashed a window in the brake van.
The nine-year-old admitted the offence and his punishment – mainly his father's – was somewhat unusual.
The wheelwright agreed to pay for the damage to the window, the costs of the hearing and also to cough up for posters to be printed warning other boys of the dangers of throwing stones.
The father also agreed to "correct the boy" – that's where Richard's punishment came in. Ouch!
A farm labourer called James Swift was summoned to the Sessions to show cause why he should not pay for his wife's maintenance in Rainhill Asylum.
The man pleaded inability to pay, saying he worked on his mother's farm as a labourer.
For a short time he received 15 shillings per week but now he said he was paid nothing, as his mother kept both him and his child.
The parish Relieving Officer wanted 8s 9d per week off Swift, describing the man as "respectably connected".
The magistrates said he must pay or go to gaol and Swift replied that he would have to choose prison – although perhaps his mother ultimately saved him from that fate.
On the 13th the court delivered judgement in the case of Thomas Hornby vs William Kay and his wife.
In July I reported on the fawning reception that locals had given Lord Derby upon his return to Knowsley Hall with his new bride.
On that day Mr and Mrs Kay were in their trap driving to Knowsley with some friends when 12-year-old Thomas Hornby ran behind them.
The Prescot watchmaker's son playfully grabbed hold of the rear of their trap and in attempting to fend him off, Mrs Kay accidentally poked Tom in the eye with her umbrella. Ouch, again!
At the previous hearing it had been stated that the boy's eyelid was seriously injured and he was unable to lift it without surgery.
Tom through his father was seeking £25 in compensation, presumably to fund an operation.
In delivering his judgement Judge Blair said he felt sorry for Tom but did consider that his disfigurement as described in the courtroom had been a bit exaggerated.
Also the boy had brought the injury upon himself and as a result there was no ground for compensation.
Tom had committed a trespass on the trap and its occupants had every right to use all legal means to stop him and could not have foreseen such a serious injury from so light an instrument as an umbrella.
Next week's stories will include the Pilkington striker who tried to throw a strike breaker off a Westfield Street bridge, the man who thought the dead were burying the dead and the formation of a new temperance movement in St Helens.