150 YEARS AGO THIS WEEK (29th AUG. - 4th SEPT. 1872)
This week's stories include the effect of the new Licensing Act on drinking in the town, the exploding elephant balloon in Mill Street, the swan stealing in Newton, the little boy that sued another boy and the completely mad man in Liverpool Road that kicked a constable in the head.
We begin on the 31st with the St Helens Newspaper's description of the annual demonstration of the Band of Hope Union. Essentially, it was a procession and gala involving 2,500 supporters of their temperance movement, although the number of walkers was greatly swelled by incorporating children. They must have made an impressive sight as they trooped through the town to the Volunteer Hall in Mill Street – and then onto the field behind. The Newspaper wrote:
"The immense column poured into the field, and as several hundreds of the public came as visitors, the ground was crowded. All sorts of games and pastimes were set on foot, and those who were inclined to be serious had addresses on temperance delivered to them from an open air platform. There was a band contest amongst juvenile bands, a competition between donkeys as to speed and beauty, so far as a donkey may be supposed to possess either; a Punchinello [clown]; and the flight of balloons.
"The balloons were a decided attraction, as they took many familiar forms. That of an elephant was a great success. The representation was excellent, and it seemed as if the most unwieldy of beasts had curled his trunk and committed himself to space. Within a reasonable time he exploded, to the intense delight of the juveniles. The conclusion of a very pleasant afternoon was taken up with a concert, consisting of the rendering of several temperance pieces by a large choral party."
In a lengthy article, the Newspaper analysed the likely effect of the new Licensing Act on drinking in the town. The Act set a framework for opening hours to try and reduce the amount of drunkenness. On weekdays, including Saturdays, licensed houses could not open their doors before 7am and they had to close at 11 pm. On Sundays they had to shut an hour earlier. Those hours were set by the new Act, although local magistrates had the discretion to amend them – but the St Helens Bench had decided not to do so for the time being.
In discussing the effects of the new Act, the Newspaper said it was currently impossible to know for certain whether drunkenness would be reduced. Although initially there'd been a drop in the number of persons appearing in the Petty Sessions for being drunk on the day when the Act came in, the Newspaper felt many drinkers had been taken by surprise by the new hours, adding:
"Anyone acquainted with this town, and with its drinking customs, will know that in the principal thoroughfares the barkeepers are as busy at eleven o’clock on Saturday night as at any other hour of the day. Most of the class who drink on the last day of the week in pursuance of a habit, have reached such a state of semi-intoxication that they will remain imbibing as long as they are permitted."
The police had been needed to persuade some patrons of Liverpool Road drinking houses to leave at 11pm. Then some did not know what to do with themselves, as the paper described: "It was curious to observe the liveliness of the streets during that hour preceding midnight. Crowds of the ejected went about as if seeking for some nook forgotten by the authorities, or without any purpose beyond remaining abroad till the accustomed hour."
Most men finished work on Saturday lunchtime and were then paid for their week's labours. The Newspaper felt that ultimately they would adjust their time spent drinking so as to consume the same amount of alcohol as before – and so drunkenness might not be reduced: "It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that as soon as the new order of things is firmly established, and familiar to all, men who have the whole of the afternoon and evening at [their] disposal will find ample time to get as much drink as they can consume."
The new Act was also intended to address the widespread adulteration of beer, wine and spirits, with the Newspaper writing: "The adulteration of drink is nearly as common as its sale. We have had a superabundance of evidence recently tending to show that even beer is made from material not recognised by law. Whiskey, wines, and other stimulants of a kindred class, are vitiated daily, and made dangerous to those who drink them. To make the law in this respect a thorough success, it is necessary that a public analyst should be appointed. If such a functionary be required anywhere, he is required in St. Helens."
I had thought that the monarchy owned all the swans in the country – but, apparently, it's only wild swans on and around the Thames. In Newton-le-Willows, Joseph Birley, a rich sugar refiner and captain in the local rifle volunteers, claimed ownership of many of the swans in the district. At the Newton Petty Sessions on the 31st, three men called David Kent, T. Hunt and Edward Houghton were summoned for killing a swan belonging to Captain Birley.
It was stated that persons killing his rooks and swans had caused great annoyance to Birley and he had brought the case so the public knew such conduct would not be tolerated. The Chairman of the Bench said he could conceive of nothing more cruel than killing swans. However, Captain Birley had already agreed to withdraw the case upon the three defendants paying the court costs.
It was a hard life being a bobby in St Helens the 1870s. The force was then very small and the officers had a large patch to cover. So calling for back up by blowing your whistle could be a fruitless task – or it could be some time before help arrived. During that period you may have received a severe beating by the man you were attempting to arrest, who was invariably drunk, and his pals might wade into you as well. The case of Michael Donnelly and PC William Todhunter that was described in St Helens Petty Sessions on October 2nd was a typical one.
The constable had attempted to take Donnelly into custody for being drunk and disorderly in Liverpool Road. But the man resisted wildly and it was fifteen minutes before Sgt. Houghton arrived on the scene to help secure the prisoner. The sergeant told the court that upon his arrival, he saw Donnelly kicking the constable in the head with his clogs, and trying to bite him as well. Superintendent Ludlam, the head of St Helens police, said that when the prisoner was brought into the police station he appeared to be "completely mad". Donnelly was fined a total of 15 shillings 6d and court costs, which was probably a week's wages.
Next to be dealt with was Donnelly's mate, Michael Conway. This is how the St Helens Newspaper reported his case: "Michael Conway was charged with resisting the same constable, and it was deposed by the constable that he employed himself in inciting the crowd to resist him and rescue Donnelly. When they arrived at the police station he gave information to the sergeant, who went into the crowd and arrested Conway. Sergeant Houghton said that when he came up prisoner was inciting the crowd by telling them to kick the constable's “guts” out. …He was fined 10s and 9s 6d costs."
It was not uncommon for a child to sue another child in court over relatively trivial matters. As their fathers were the ones by which the case had to be conducted in court, the dispute was clearly more to do with adults falling out than their kids. In the 1871 census John McGarry was shown living in Waines Court in Snig Lane in Prescot in a family household comprising 14 people. Just what their sleeping arrangements were, I dread to think. John Horrocks was living in comparative luxury in Whiston with only six persons in the house – although the name of the street was Dirty Lane!
In the Prescot Petty Sessions on the 3rd, John Horrocks charged John McGarry with assault. As both lads were only about seven, the Chairman of the Bench suggested that some amicable, out-of-court settlement should be found between them. But the father of the defendant, John McGarry, was having none of it, wanting the court to deal with the case. Young John Horrocks then explained how the other boy had forced a stick into his mouth, injuring it very badly and then knocked his head against a wall. John McGarry's version of what happened was delivered through his father who claimed that the lads had simply been running together.
He said John Horrocks had fallen and the stick that the boy was carrying in his hand had simply injured his mouth. The Chairman said he believed that an assault had been committed but not with any intention of being serious. So the boy was given a criminal record at the age of only 7 and fined 1 shilling and costs. It would not be until 1933 that the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales would be set at eight and then thirty years later it was raised to ten.
There was a special treat on the 4th when Arthur Lloyd appeared at the Volunteer Hall in St Helens (pictured above in later years). He was a very famous comic vocalist who was said to earn between £70 and £100 a week – a huge wage when few earned much more than a pound. Arthur's show was called "Two Hours' Genuine Fun" in which "New Songs and New Sensations" were on offer. The ticket prices were quite reasonable, costing between 6d and 2 shillings. Arthur also played Widnes in the early 1870s but wasn't very impressed with what he found, calling the town "a dirty little hole". Just what he made of St Helens, I cannot say!
Next week's stories will include the banning of unlicensed steam whistles at St Helens' works, the Bridge Street labourer hit on the head by two dropped bricks, the trespassing at Haydock Park and the written off pauper kids at Whiston Workhouse.
We begin on the 31st with the St Helens Newspaper's description of the annual demonstration of the Band of Hope Union. Essentially, it was a procession and gala involving 2,500 supporters of their temperance movement, although the number of walkers was greatly swelled by incorporating children. They must have made an impressive sight as they trooped through the town to the Volunteer Hall in Mill Street – and then onto the field behind. The Newspaper wrote:
"The immense column poured into the field, and as several hundreds of the public came as visitors, the ground was crowded. All sorts of games and pastimes were set on foot, and those who were inclined to be serious had addresses on temperance delivered to them from an open air platform. There was a band contest amongst juvenile bands, a competition between donkeys as to speed and beauty, so far as a donkey may be supposed to possess either; a Punchinello [clown]; and the flight of balloons.
"The balloons were a decided attraction, as they took many familiar forms. That of an elephant was a great success. The representation was excellent, and it seemed as if the most unwieldy of beasts had curled his trunk and committed himself to space. Within a reasonable time he exploded, to the intense delight of the juveniles. The conclusion of a very pleasant afternoon was taken up with a concert, consisting of the rendering of several temperance pieces by a large choral party."
In a lengthy article, the Newspaper analysed the likely effect of the new Licensing Act on drinking in the town. The Act set a framework for opening hours to try and reduce the amount of drunkenness. On weekdays, including Saturdays, licensed houses could not open their doors before 7am and they had to close at 11 pm. On Sundays they had to shut an hour earlier. Those hours were set by the new Act, although local magistrates had the discretion to amend them – but the St Helens Bench had decided not to do so for the time being.
In discussing the effects of the new Act, the Newspaper said it was currently impossible to know for certain whether drunkenness would be reduced. Although initially there'd been a drop in the number of persons appearing in the Petty Sessions for being drunk on the day when the Act came in, the Newspaper felt many drinkers had been taken by surprise by the new hours, adding:
"Anyone acquainted with this town, and with its drinking customs, will know that in the principal thoroughfares the barkeepers are as busy at eleven o’clock on Saturday night as at any other hour of the day. Most of the class who drink on the last day of the week in pursuance of a habit, have reached such a state of semi-intoxication that they will remain imbibing as long as they are permitted."
The police had been needed to persuade some patrons of Liverpool Road drinking houses to leave at 11pm. Then some did not know what to do with themselves, as the paper described: "It was curious to observe the liveliness of the streets during that hour preceding midnight. Crowds of the ejected went about as if seeking for some nook forgotten by the authorities, or without any purpose beyond remaining abroad till the accustomed hour."
Most men finished work on Saturday lunchtime and were then paid for their week's labours. The Newspaper felt that ultimately they would adjust their time spent drinking so as to consume the same amount of alcohol as before – and so drunkenness might not be reduced: "It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that as soon as the new order of things is firmly established, and familiar to all, men who have the whole of the afternoon and evening at [their] disposal will find ample time to get as much drink as they can consume."
The new Act was also intended to address the widespread adulteration of beer, wine and spirits, with the Newspaper writing: "The adulteration of drink is nearly as common as its sale. We have had a superabundance of evidence recently tending to show that even beer is made from material not recognised by law. Whiskey, wines, and other stimulants of a kindred class, are vitiated daily, and made dangerous to those who drink them. To make the law in this respect a thorough success, it is necessary that a public analyst should be appointed. If such a functionary be required anywhere, he is required in St. Helens."
I had thought that the monarchy owned all the swans in the country – but, apparently, it's only wild swans on and around the Thames. In Newton-le-Willows, Joseph Birley, a rich sugar refiner and captain in the local rifle volunteers, claimed ownership of many of the swans in the district. At the Newton Petty Sessions on the 31st, three men called David Kent, T. Hunt and Edward Houghton were summoned for killing a swan belonging to Captain Birley.
It was stated that persons killing his rooks and swans had caused great annoyance to Birley and he had brought the case so the public knew such conduct would not be tolerated. The Chairman of the Bench said he could conceive of nothing more cruel than killing swans. However, Captain Birley had already agreed to withdraw the case upon the three defendants paying the court costs.
It was a hard life being a bobby in St Helens the 1870s. The force was then very small and the officers had a large patch to cover. So calling for back up by blowing your whistle could be a fruitless task – or it could be some time before help arrived. During that period you may have received a severe beating by the man you were attempting to arrest, who was invariably drunk, and his pals might wade into you as well. The case of Michael Donnelly and PC William Todhunter that was described in St Helens Petty Sessions on October 2nd was a typical one.
The constable had attempted to take Donnelly into custody for being drunk and disorderly in Liverpool Road. But the man resisted wildly and it was fifteen minutes before Sgt. Houghton arrived on the scene to help secure the prisoner. The sergeant told the court that upon his arrival, he saw Donnelly kicking the constable in the head with his clogs, and trying to bite him as well. Superintendent Ludlam, the head of St Helens police, said that when the prisoner was brought into the police station he appeared to be "completely mad". Donnelly was fined a total of 15 shillings 6d and court costs, which was probably a week's wages.
Next to be dealt with was Donnelly's mate, Michael Conway. This is how the St Helens Newspaper reported his case: "Michael Conway was charged with resisting the same constable, and it was deposed by the constable that he employed himself in inciting the crowd to resist him and rescue Donnelly. When they arrived at the police station he gave information to the sergeant, who went into the crowd and arrested Conway. Sergeant Houghton said that when he came up prisoner was inciting the crowd by telling them to kick the constable's “guts” out. …He was fined 10s and 9s 6d costs."
It was not uncommon for a child to sue another child in court over relatively trivial matters. As their fathers were the ones by which the case had to be conducted in court, the dispute was clearly more to do with adults falling out than their kids. In the 1871 census John McGarry was shown living in Waines Court in Snig Lane in Prescot in a family household comprising 14 people. Just what their sleeping arrangements were, I dread to think. John Horrocks was living in comparative luxury in Whiston with only six persons in the house – although the name of the street was Dirty Lane!
In the Prescot Petty Sessions on the 3rd, John Horrocks charged John McGarry with assault. As both lads were only about seven, the Chairman of the Bench suggested that some amicable, out-of-court settlement should be found between them. But the father of the defendant, John McGarry, was having none of it, wanting the court to deal with the case. Young John Horrocks then explained how the other boy had forced a stick into his mouth, injuring it very badly and then knocked his head against a wall. John McGarry's version of what happened was delivered through his father who claimed that the lads had simply been running together.
He said John Horrocks had fallen and the stick that the boy was carrying in his hand had simply injured his mouth. The Chairman said he believed that an assault had been committed but not with any intention of being serious. So the boy was given a criminal record at the age of only 7 and fined 1 shilling and costs. It would not be until 1933 that the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales would be set at eight and then thirty years later it was raised to ten.
Next week's stories will include the banning of unlicensed steam whistles at St Helens' works, the Bridge Street labourer hit on the head by two dropped bricks, the trespassing at Haydock Park and the written off pauper kids at Whiston Workhouse.
This week's stories include the effect of the new Licensing Act on drinking in the town, the exploding elephant balloon in Mill Street, the swan stealing in Newton, the little boy that sued another boy and the completely mad man in Liverpool Road that kicked a constable in the head.
We begin on the 31st with the St Helens Newspaper's description of the annual demonstration of the Band of Hope Union.
Essentially, it was a procession and gala involving 2,500 supporters of their temperance movement, although the number of walkers was greatly swelled by incorporating children.
They must have made an impressive sight as they trooped through the town to the Volunteer Hall in Mill Street – and then onto the field behind. The Newspaper wrote:
"The immense column poured into the field, and as several hundreds of the public came as visitors, the ground was crowded. All sorts of games and pastimes were set on foot, and those who were inclined to be serious had addresses on temperance delivered to them from an open air platform.
"There was a band contest amongst juvenile bands, a competition between donkeys as to speed and beauty, so far as a donkey may be supposed to possess either; a Punchinello [clown]; and the flight of balloons.
"The balloons were a decided attraction, as they took many familiar forms. That of an elephant was a great success. The representation was excellent, and it seemed as if the most unwieldy of beasts had curled his trunk and committed himself to space.
"Within a reasonable time he exploded, to the intense delight of the juveniles. The conclusion of a very pleasant afternoon was taken up with a concert, consisting of the rendering of several temperance pieces by a large choral party."
In a lengthy article, the Newspaper analysed the likely effect of the new Licensing Act on drinking in the town.
The Act set a framework for opening hours to try and reduce the amount of drunkenness. On weekdays, including Saturdays, licensed houses could not open their doors before 7am and they had to close at 11 pm. On Sundays they had to shut an hour earlier.
Those hours were set by the new Act, although local magistrates had the discretion to amend them – but the St Helens Bench had decided not to do so for the time being.
In discussing the effects of the new Act, the Newspaper said it was currently impossible to know for certain whether drunkenness would be reduced.
Although initially there'd been a drop in the number of persons appearing in the Petty Sessions for being drunk on the day when the Act came in, the Newspaper felt many drinkers had been taken by surprise by the new hours, adding:
"Anyone acquainted with this town, and with its drinking customs, will know that in the principal thoroughfares the barkeepers are as busy at eleven o’clock on Saturday night as at any other hour of the day.
"Most of the class who drink on the last day of the week in pursuance of a habit, have reached such a state of semi-intoxication that they will remain imbibing as long as they are permitted."
The police had been needed to persuade some patrons of Liverpool Road drinking houses to leave at 11pm. Then some did not know what to do with themselves, as the paper described:
"It was curious to observe the liveliness of the streets during that hour preceding midnight. Crowds of the ejected went about as if seeking for some nook forgotten by the authorities, or without any purpose beyond remaining abroad till the accustomed hour."
Most men finished work on Saturday lunchtime and were then paid for their week's labours.
The Newspaper felt that ultimately they would adjust their time spent drinking so as to consume the same amount of alcohol as before – and so drunkenness might not be reduced:
"It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that as soon as the new order of things is firmly established, and familiar to all, men who have the whole of the afternoon and evening at [their] disposal will find ample time to get as much drink as they can consume."
The new Act was also intended to address the widespread adulteration of beer, wine and spirits, with the Newspaper writing:
"The adulteration of drink is nearly as common as its sale. We have had a superabundance of evidence recently tending to show that even beer is made from material not recognised by law.
"Whiskey, wines, and other stimulants of a kindred class, are vitiated daily, and made dangerous to those who drink them.
"To make the law in this respect a thorough success, it is necessary that a public analyst should be appointed. If such a functionary be required anywhere, he is required in St. Helens."
I had thought that the monarchy owned all the swans in the country – but, apparently, it's only wild swans on and around the Thames.
In Newton-le-Willows, Joseph Birley, a rich sugar refiner and captain in the local rifle volunteers, claimed ownership of many of the swans in the district.
At the Newton Petty Sessions on the 31st, three men called David Kent, T. Hunt and Edward Houghton were summoned for killing a swan belonging to Captain Birley.
It was stated that persons killing his rooks and swans had caused great annoyance to Birley and he had brought the case so the public knew such conduct would not be tolerated.
The Chairman of the Bench said he could conceive of nothing more cruel than killing swans.
However, Captain Birley had already agreed to withdraw the case upon the three defendants paying the court costs.
It was a hard life being a bobby in St Helens the 1870s. The force was then very small and the officers had a large patch to cover.
So calling for back up by blowing your whistle could be a fruitless task – or it could be some time before help arrived.
During that period you may have received a severe beating by the man you were attempting to arrest, who was invariably drunk, and his pals might wade into you as well.
The case of Michael Donnelly and PC William Todhunter that was described in St Helens Petty Sessions on October 2nd was a typical one.
The constable had attempted to take Donnelly into custody for being drunk and disorderly in Liverpool Road.
But the man resisted wildly and it was fifteen minutes before Sgt. Houghton arrived on the scene to help secure the prisoner.
The sergeant told the court that upon his arrival, he saw Donnelly kicking the constable in the head with his clogs, and trying to bite him as well.
Superintendent Ludlam, the head of St Helens police, said that when the prisoner was brought into the police station he appeared to be "completely mad".
Donnelly was fined a total of 15 shillings 6d and court costs, which was probably a week's wages.
Next to be dealt with was Donnelly's mate, Michael Conway. This is how the St Helens Newspaper reported his case:
"Michael Conway was charged with resisting the same constable, and it was deposed by the constable that he employed himself in inciting the crowd to resist him and rescue Donnelly.
"When they arrived at the police station he gave information to the sergeant, who went into the crowd and arrested Conway. Sergeant Houghton said that when he came up prisoner was inciting the crowd by telling them to kick the constable's “guts” out. …He was fined 10s and 9s 6d costs."
It was not uncommon for a child to sue another child in court over relatively trivial matters.
As their fathers were the ones by which the case had to be conducted in court, the dispute was clearly more to do with adults falling out than their kids.
In the 1871 census John McGarry was shown living in Waines Court in Snig Lane in Prescot in a family household comprising 14 people. Just what their sleeping arrangements were, I dread to think.
John Horrocks was living in comparative luxury in Whiston with only six persons in the house – although the name of the street was Dirty Lane!
In the Prescot Petty Sessions on the 3rd, John Horrocks charged John McGarry with assault.
As both lads were only about seven, the Chairman of the Bench suggested that some amicable, out-of-court settlement should be found between them.
But the father of the defendant, John McGarry, was having none of it, wanting the court to deal with the case.
Young John Horrocks then explained how the other boy had forced a stick into his mouth, injuring it very badly and then knocked his head against a wall.
John McGarry's version of what happened was delivered through his father who claimed that the lads had simply been running together.
He said John Horrocks had fallen and the stick that the boy was carrying in his hand had simply injured his mouth.
The Chairman said he believed that an assault had been committed but not with any intention of being serious.
So the boy was given a criminal record at the age of only 7 and fined 1 shilling and costs.
It would not be until 1933 that the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales would be set at eight and then thirty years later it was raised to ten.
There was a special treat on the 4th when Arthur Lloyd appeared at the Volunteer Hall in St Helens (pictured above in later years).
He was a very famous comic vocalist who was said to earn between £70 and £100 a week – a huge wage when few earned much more than a pound.
Arthur's show was called "Two Hours' Genuine Fun" in which "New Songs and New Sensations" were on offer.
The ticket prices were quite reasonable, costing between 6d and 2 shillings.
Arthur also played Widnes in the early 1870s but wasn't very impressed with what he found, calling the town "a dirty little hole". Just what he made of St Helens, I cannot say!
Next week's stories will include the banning of unlicensed steam whistles at St Helens' works, the Bridge Street labourer hit on the head by two dropped bricks, the trespassing at Haydock Park and the written off pauper kids at Whiston Workhouse.
We begin on the 31st with the St Helens Newspaper's description of the annual demonstration of the Band of Hope Union.
Essentially, it was a procession and gala involving 2,500 supporters of their temperance movement, although the number of walkers was greatly swelled by incorporating children.
They must have made an impressive sight as they trooped through the town to the Volunteer Hall in Mill Street – and then onto the field behind. The Newspaper wrote:
"The immense column poured into the field, and as several hundreds of the public came as visitors, the ground was crowded. All sorts of games and pastimes were set on foot, and those who were inclined to be serious had addresses on temperance delivered to them from an open air platform.
"There was a band contest amongst juvenile bands, a competition between donkeys as to speed and beauty, so far as a donkey may be supposed to possess either; a Punchinello [clown]; and the flight of balloons.
"The balloons were a decided attraction, as they took many familiar forms. That of an elephant was a great success. The representation was excellent, and it seemed as if the most unwieldy of beasts had curled his trunk and committed himself to space.
"Within a reasonable time he exploded, to the intense delight of the juveniles. The conclusion of a very pleasant afternoon was taken up with a concert, consisting of the rendering of several temperance pieces by a large choral party."
In a lengthy article, the Newspaper analysed the likely effect of the new Licensing Act on drinking in the town.
The Act set a framework for opening hours to try and reduce the amount of drunkenness. On weekdays, including Saturdays, licensed houses could not open their doors before 7am and they had to close at 11 pm. On Sundays they had to shut an hour earlier.
Those hours were set by the new Act, although local magistrates had the discretion to amend them – but the St Helens Bench had decided not to do so for the time being.
In discussing the effects of the new Act, the Newspaper said it was currently impossible to know for certain whether drunkenness would be reduced.
Although initially there'd been a drop in the number of persons appearing in the Petty Sessions for being drunk on the day when the Act came in, the Newspaper felt many drinkers had been taken by surprise by the new hours, adding:
"Anyone acquainted with this town, and with its drinking customs, will know that in the principal thoroughfares the barkeepers are as busy at eleven o’clock on Saturday night as at any other hour of the day.
"Most of the class who drink on the last day of the week in pursuance of a habit, have reached such a state of semi-intoxication that they will remain imbibing as long as they are permitted."
The police had been needed to persuade some patrons of Liverpool Road drinking houses to leave at 11pm. Then some did not know what to do with themselves, as the paper described:
"It was curious to observe the liveliness of the streets during that hour preceding midnight. Crowds of the ejected went about as if seeking for some nook forgotten by the authorities, or without any purpose beyond remaining abroad till the accustomed hour."
Most men finished work on Saturday lunchtime and were then paid for their week's labours.
The Newspaper felt that ultimately they would adjust their time spent drinking so as to consume the same amount of alcohol as before – and so drunkenness might not be reduced:
"It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that as soon as the new order of things is firmly established, and familiar to all, men who have the whole of the afternoon and evening at [their] disposal will find ample time to get as much drink as they can consume."
The new Act was also intended to address the widespread adulteration of beer, wine and spirits, with the Newspaper writing:
"The adulteration of drink is nearly as common as its sale. We have had a superabundance of evidence recently tending to show that even beer is made from material not recognised by law.
"Whiskey, wines, and other stimulants of a kindred class, are vitiated daily, and made dangerous to those who drink them.
"To make the law in this respect a thorough success, it is necessary that a public analyst should be appointed. If such a functionary be required anywhere, he is required in St. Helens."
I had thought that the monarchy owned all the swans in the country – but, apparently, it's only wild swans on and around the Thames.
In Newton-le-Willows, Joseph Birley, a rich sugar refiner and captain in the local rifle volunteers, claimed ownership of many of the swans in the district.
At the Newton Petty Sessions on the 31st, three men called David Kent, T. Hunt and Edward Houghton were summoned for killing a swan belonging to Captain Birley.
It was stated that persons killing his rooks and swans had caused great annoyance to Birley and he had brought the case so the public knew such conduct would not be tolerated.
The Chairman of the Bench said he could conceive of nothing more cruel than killing swans.
However, Captain Birley had already agreed to withdraw the case upon the three defendants paying the court costs.
It was a hard life being a bobby in St Helens the 1870s. The force was then very small and the officers had a large patch to cover.
So calling for back up by blowing your whistle could be a fruitless task – or it could be some time before help arrived.
During that period you may have received a severe beating by the man you were attempting to arrest, who was invariably drunk, and his pals might wade into you as well.
The case of Michael Donnelly and PC William Todhunter that was described in St Helens Petty Sessions on October 2nd was a typical one.
The constable had attempted to take Donnelly into custody for being drunk and disorderly in Liverpool Road.
But the man resisted wildly and it was fifteen minutes before Sgt. Houghton arrived on the scene to help secure the prisoner.
The sergeant told the court that upon his arrival, he saw Donnelly kicking the constable in the head with his clogs, and trying to bite him as well.
Superintendent Ludlam, the head of St Helens police, said that when the prisoner was brought into the police station he appeared to be "completely mad".
Donnelly was fined a total of 15 shillings 6d and court costs, which was probably a week's wages.
Next to be dealt with was Donnelly's mate, Michael Conway. This is how the St Helens Newspaper reported his case:
"Michael Conway was charged with resisting the same constable, and it was deposed by the constable that he employed himself in inciting the crowd to resist him and rescue Donnelly.
"When they arrived at the police station he gave information to the sergeant, who went into the crowd and arrested Conway. Sergeant Houghton said that when he came up prisoner was inciting the crowd by telling them to kick the constable's “guts” out. …He was fined 10s and 9s 6d costs."
It was not uncommon for a child to sue another child in court over relatively trivial matters.
As their fathers were the ones by which the case had to be conducted in court, the dispute was clearly more to do with adults falling out than their kids.
In the 1871 census John McGarry was shown living in Waines Court in Snig Lane in Prescot in a family household comprising 14 people. Just what their sleeping arrangements were, I dread to think.
John Horrocks was living in comparative luxury in Whiston with only six persons in the house – although the name of the street was Dirty Lane!
In the Prescot Petty Sessions on the 3rd, John Horrocks charged John McGarry with assault.
As both lads were only about seven, the Chairman of the Bench suggested that some amicable, out-of-court settlement should be found between them.
But the father of the defendant, John McGarry, was having none of it, wanting the court to deal with the case.
Young John Horrocks then explained how the other boy had forced a stick into his mouth, injuring it very badly and then knocked his head against a wall.
John McGarry's version of what happened was delivered through his father who claimed that the lads had simply been running together.
He said John Horrocks had fallen and the stick that the boy was carrying in his hand had simply injured his mouth.
The Chairman said he believed that an assault had been committed but not with any intention of being serious.
So the boy was given a criminal record at the age of only 7 and fined 1 shilling and costs.
It would not be until 1933 that the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales would be set at eight and then thirty years later it was raised to ten.
He was a very famous comic vocalist who was said to earn between £70 and £100 a week – a huge wage when few earned much more than a pound.
Arthur's show was called "Two Hours' Genuine Fun" in which "New Songs and New Sensations" were on offer.
The ticket prices were quite reasonable, costing between 6d and 2 shillings.
Arthur also played Widnes in the early 1870s but wasn't very impressed with what he found, calling the town "a dirty little hole". Just what he made of St Helens, I cannot say!
Next week's stories will include the banning of unlicensed steam whistles at St Helens' works, the Bridge Street labourer hit on the head by two dropped bricks, the trespassing at Haydock Park and the written off pauper kids at Whiston Workhouse.