Mercuriosities

Extract from 3 and 4 Victoria, Cap. 85, being an Act for the regulation of Chimney Sweepers and Chinmneys:-

Chimney sweeps were using children as young as four to go up and clean chimneys or dislodge brushes which had become stuck. This Act was intended to bring an end to that practice, but it was not until a further Act in 1862, that the sweeps were finally stopped from using children at all (including their own).

And it being enacted that, from and after the 1st day of July in the year 1842, any person who shall complet of knowqingly allow any child ir young person under the age of 21 years to ascend or descend a chimney, or enter a flue, for the purpose of sweeping, cleaning, or coring the same, or for extinguishing fire therein, shall be liable to a penalty of not more than 10l. nor less than 5l.

That from and after the passing of this Act, it shall not be lawful to apprentice to any person ising the trade or business of a shimney-sweeper any child under the age of 16 years and that every indenture of such apprenticeship which may be entered into after such date shall be null and void.

That from and after the 1st day of July, 1842, all existing indentures of apprenticeship to the trade or business of a shimney-sweeper of any child who shall then be under the age of 16 years shall be null and void.

And whereas it is expedient, for the better security from accidents by fire or otherwise, the improved construction of chimnieys and flues provided by the said Act be cintinued; be it enacted, that all withs and partitrions between any chimney or flue which at any time after the passing of this Act shall be built or rebuilt shall be of brick or stone, an at least equal to half a brick in thickness; and every breast-back and with or partition of any chimney or flue hereafter to be built or rebuilt shall be built of sound materials, and the joints of the work well filled in with good mortar or cement, and rendered or stuccoed within; and also that any chimney or flue hereafter to be built or rebuilt in any wall, or of greater length than four feet out of the wall, not being a circular chimney or flue twelve inches in diameeter, shall be in every section of the same not less than 14 inches by 9 inches; and no chimney or flue shall be constructed with any angle thering which shall be less obtuse than an angle of 120 degrees, except as is hereinafter excepted; and every salient or projecting angle in any chimney or flue shall be rounded off four inches at least, upon pain of forfeiture, by every master-builder or other master0workman who shall make eor cause to be made such chimneyt or flue, of any sum not less that 10l. nor exceeding 50l. – Provided nevertheless, tha notwithstanding this Act chimenys or flues may be built at angles with each other of 90 degrees and more, such chimneys or flues having therein proper doors of openings not less than six inches square.

The Stamford Mercury, 18th February, 1842.

Polygamy is an old story and one we have brought to your attention before. In our previous article, dated 1829, the woman’s punishment for having six husbands was seven years’ transportation for each offence; this lucky man received only one term of seven years’ transportation for having 3-5 wives. Perhaps they met each other in Australia.

‘The Bury Post says that,

“In passing sentence upon Thomas Peacock, found guilty of marrying Sarah Steed, spinster, at Lavenham, in 1805 ; Mary Green, widow, at Postwick, in 1824, and Mary Harnton, spinster, at Elmswell, about seven years ago, all of whom are still living, the facetious Judge addressed the prisoner, whose countenance was far from intelligent, and who was dressed like the inmate of a workhouse, in nearly the following terms :–

“Prisoner, you have been found guilty of having three wives at one time, and unless I send you out of the country, you are such a terrible fellow, that it is to be feared you will literally make a conquest of all the ladies that come in your way. Not being contented with one or even two wives, your attractions were so irresistible, that the last lady (a poor decrepit old woman) that appeared in the box against you, was unable to withstand your solicitations, although it was evident she had arrived at that age when no common charms would have been successful. But to be serious, you have been guilty of a most heinous offence, against the laws of both God and man, and it is my duty to pass upon you such a sentence as will prevent you again putting into execution in this country at any rate, for some years, such nefarious practices. For the preservation, therefore, of the ladies here, whose hearts you appear by your fascinating qualifications easily to win, and to prevent the ladies by whom I am surrounded from falling a sacrifice to a person of such agreeable and attractive manners, the sentence of the court is that you be transported to such place as his Majesty, by the advice of his Privy Council, shall direct, for the term of seven years.” The above humorous manner of passing a sentence certainly had the effect of moving the risible muscles of every body in the court except the prisoner, particularly among the fair sex, who at the time were very numerous ; but we must nevertheless express our surprise that an offence of so dangerous a tendency as polygamy should be held up to ridicule from so high a station, and upon such a serious occasion as the passing of sentence of transportation by an English Judge in a Court of Justice. The prisoner himself seems to have been so little impressed with the criminality of his conduct, as to have observed very coolly as he went down, that he had two other wives in Yorkshire, but he dare say they know nothing about his apprehension.’

Stamford Mercury, 11th April, 1828.

A quack doctor‘s remedy for everything from bruises and chilblains to gout and ricketts. You can’t go wrong with Opodeldoc; you can use it on horses too.

'Just received by the Printer hereof,
(And may be had of him, and his newsmen,)
A fresh PARCEL of 
Dr. STEERS'S Chemical 
O P O D E L D O C,
For Bruises, Sprains, Rheumatism, &c.
In Bottles of 2s. 6d. and 1s. 6d. each.

This incomparable Opodeldoc (so universally esteemed for its superior Efficacy) is warm, penetrating, and attenuating, and is therefore an excellent Embrocation for the Gout and Rheumatism, dissolving the coajulated Lymph, of which those Diseases are formed.

In wounded Tendons it is likewise of the greatest Service, by Preventing the Juice which oozes out of them from fixing, and by its Tension occasioning those fatal Effects that often arise from them.

Bruises and Sprains it infallibly cures ; for it keeps the extravasated Lymph and Blood perfectly dissolved, prevents their fixing in the Interstices of the Vessels, ’till Nature either takes them up by the refluent Blood, or expels them through the Pores of the Skin.

Long contracted Sprains are removed by it, and it is of the utmost Service for weak and ricketty Children ; as also for Numbness, Stiffness or Weakness in the Joints.

It is a most efficacious Remedy for Burns and Scalds, extracting the Fire very soon, and if used immediately will entirely prevent them from blistering.

It speedily cures violent Pinches and Wounds under the Nails ; is excellent for a fresh Cut, and is of infinite Use for the Sting of Wasps, &c. and the Bite of Gnats and other venemous Insects.

For Chilblains or Chaps in the Hands or Feet, it is by far the best Remedy known, removing them very speedily, and if applied in Time will hinder them from breaking.

It is remarkably pleasant to the Smell, and for sudden Head-achs, equal to any of the volatile Essences.

N.B. This Opodeldoc is of the greatest Service for Horses that are strained in the back Sinews, wrung in the Withers, or have their Backs galled with the Saddle ; as likewise for swelled or cracked Heels, Wind Galls, old Strains, &c. and being so simple in the Application, is preferable to any other Preparation for Travellers.’

Stamford Mercury, 16 January, 1783.

Manslaughter by a doctress.* Mercury used to be prescribed as a treatment for syphilis, so this sailor was probably not in the best of health. If mercury didn’t poison you, then the cure to rid your body of it would kill you anyway. Another treatment for syphilis was the use of sweat baths as it was thought induced salivation and sweating eliminated the syphilitic poisons.

But to get away with murder, or manslaughter in this case, you had to be a proper doctor.

“A woman named Nancy Simpson, a pretended doctress at Liverpool, has been committed to Lancaster Castle for trial at the next assizes, charged by the coroner’s inquest with manslaughter, in having occasioned the death of Wm. Birkett, a fine, stout, comely seafaring man, 21 years of age, by giving him some quack mixture, “to get the mercury out of his bones,” as she said, (it having been lately necessary that he should undergo salivation,) and which mixture had poisoned the young man.–The wretch lived in a cellar in Liverpool, and in her apartment were found numerous powders, pills and other nostrums, of a most potent and dangerous character.”

Stamford Mercury, 21 November, 1828.

*Another alternative for a female doctor was ‘doctrix’.

The pleasure fair would become extinct; such was the prophecy of the writer of this article, lamenting the decline in attendance at the Stamford Mid-Lent pleasure fair. How shocked he would be to see it now, utterly transformed from exhibits of ‘dwarfs, giantesses, extraordinary cows, talking pigs’ to a collection of fairground attractions, from bumper cars, rollercoasters, trampolines to fortune tellers.

‘At one time, before the age of locomotive transit, the Midlent pleasure fair at Stamford was looked forward to by all classes with great expectation, and was considered worthy of patronage by all the élite of the town and neighbourhood ; but now, since access to the great metropolis has become so cheap and easy, there has been a gradual falling off in the attendance of–first of the visitors, & then of the attractions & amusements ; and at length the prophecy, “that in course of time, country fairs would become extinct,” seems to be fast approaching verification. At the mart last week there was a marked decline in the attendance of exhibitions and amusements, as also of visitors ; and even amongst those who did attend there seemed either a scarcity of money or want of excitement ; and it is not at all unlikely many of the proprietors of stalls and shows will be deterred from again visiting this fair, owing to the little support they met with on this occasion. The principal attractions were Wombwell’s collection of wild animals, whose band drew more listeners than the zoological specimens inside did spectators, for at no time was the attendance very large ; Clapton’s exhibition of moving figures, we believe, had the lion’s share of patronage, and Stevens’ menagerie was pretty well supported. There were also a peep show and one or two others of the minor class of exhibitions, consisting of dwarfs, giantesses, extraordinary cows, talking pigs, &c., with the usual complement of photographic and rifle galleries, all of which appeared to suffer from a want of money or an extra expenditure on the Royal wedding-day. There was likewise a diminution in the attendance of the light-fingered gentry, for we have only heard of one case of pocket picking during the whole of the fair : this was probaby owing to the efficient police arrangements.’

Stamford Mercury, 27 March, 1863.

Mary Stuart, who said she was the grand-daughter of Charles Stuart, The Young Pretender to the British throne, importunes Lord Palmerston without success and is punished by being confined for seven years.

‘At Marlborough-street police-court, on the 26th ult., Mary Stuart, needlewoman, about 60 years of age, who said she lived in Great Warner-street, Clerkenwell, was charged with wilfully breaking a square of glass at the residence of Lord Palmerston, Piccadilly. The offence was proved by Henry Bird, groom of the chambers to Lord Palmerston, who said that the prisoner came up to the house and inquired, “Is this Lord Palmerston’s ?” and being told that it was, deliberately threw a stone at the window. The prisoner, in reply to the charge, entered into a long statement, the effect of which was that she was the grand-daughter of Prince Charles Stuart, the Pretender ; that she had made repeated applications to the Government since 1829, also to George the Fourth, to the King of Hanover, and to the late Sir James Graham, but without effect. She had broken the windows of Sir James Graham, and was committed for ten days for so doing. She was afterwards kept in confinement for seven years, on the pretence that she was of unsound mind. A commission was sent to see her : they said she was sane, and she was liberated. She had written to Lord Palmerston for assistance, but as she could get no reply she broke a window. Since she had been discharged from the asylum she had gained her living by needlework. Mr. Knox remanded her for a week.’

Stamford Mercury, April 3, 1863.

Desperation and poverty drove a youth to highway robbery and horse stealing on the Great North Road near Stamford. He might have frightened a small boy, but the boy’s father was made of sterner stuff and he apprehended the culprit at The Bull and Swan.

“One of the most extraordinary cases of highway -robbery and horse-stealing ever heard of occurred last Sunday morning, on the great road a mile and a half north of Stilton. A son of Mr. C. R. Roberts, of Alwalton, between 8 and 9 years of age, was riding to Stilton to fetch his father’s letters from the Post-office, when he was met and accosted, in the parish of Haddon, by a well-dressed youth about 18 years old, who seized the reins and desired young Roberts to dismount. The latter demurred; on which his assailant presented a pistol, and swore that he would blow out his brains unless he instantly obeyed. The boy therefore got off; on which the highwayman mounted, and saying that ‘if the boy’s father wanted the horse, he would find him the next night at York,’ rode away towards Wansford. The poor boy made the best of his way back to Alwalton (about two miles), and informed his father what had occurred. Mr. Roberts called two neighbours to his assisstnace; and after dispatching them in pursuit on the roads to Oundle and Peterboro’, himself set off on the great north road, and soon discovered that he was in the route of the thief. On ascending the hill where the Whitewater toll-bar formerly stood, two miles from Stamford, he perceived him on the road; and remembering that he was represented to be armed, Mr. R. approached leisurely, and accosted him civilly. The thief returned the salutation like a gentleman, and the two jogged on together for a short distance, conversing about the horse which the young man was riding, the paces of which Mr. Roberts affected to admire; and the enquiry whether he could purchase the animal, was answered with the observation that the price would be the only difficulty. On their reaching the toll-bar a mile from the town,it turned out that the young gentleman had (as he said) ‘no change,’ but Mr. Roberts offering to pay the threehalfpence for him, the two again set forward, and renewed the conversation about the horse until they reached the Bull and Swan inn in St. Martin’s, where Mr. Roberts said he should stop for a time, and he invited his companion to turn in and take a glass with him. The latter agreed; and on riding under the gateway, Mr. Roberts alertly slipped off his horse, and catching the young man in his arms as he also alighted, pinioned him so as to prevent his using pistols, and called for help, which being instantly given, the youth was effectually secured. In his side-pocket was found a new pistol loaded with ball, with several other balls, powder, &co. Perceiving that Mr. Roberts was the owner of the hose he had stolen, the youth became disheartened, and in a short time acknowledged the felony, stating that distress had driven him to it, as when he stopped Mr. R’s son he had only one penny in his pocket. He subsequently stated that his name was Charles Cole, and that his friends lived at No. 7, Carter-street, Park-lane, Westminster; that he robbed them, and dare not return; and that he was making his way on foot to the residence of his aunt, Mrs. Ord, Nunthorpe Hall, near York, and slept on Saturday night in a barn at Alconbury Hill. He was given into the custody of the Police, and on Monday was taken back to Huntingdonshire, and underwent a long examination before Lord George Gordon, by whom he was fully committed to Huntingdon gaol for trial at the next session, on the charge of highway robbery.”

The Stamford Mercury, 29th January, 1841.

Catharine Brooks of Red Lion Street, Stamford, in the century before Mrs Beeton’s Book of Household Management came on the scene, wrote a cookery book that was available nationwide.

‘This day is published, (Price only One Shilling) Adorned with a most beautiful Frontispiece, and other useful Cuts, being the most plain, cheap and easy Book of the Kind ever yet published.)

The Complete English Cook ; or, PRUDENT HOUSEWIFE.

Being an entire New Collection of the most Genteel, yet least Expensive Receipts in every Branch of Cookery and good Housewifery, viz.

Roasting,	Fricaseys,	Potting,
Boiling,	Pies, Tarts,	Candying
Stewing	Puddings,	Collering,
Ragoos	Cheesecakes,	Pickling,
Soups, Sauces,	Custards,	Preserving,
Made Dishes,	Jellies,	Made wines, &c

Together with the Art of Marketing, and Directions for placing Dishes on Tables for Entertainments ; and many other Things equally necessary.–The whole made Easy to the meanest Capacity, and far more Useful to young Beginners, than any Book of the Kind extant.

By CATHARINE BROOKS, of Red-Lion-street.

To which is added, the PHYSICAL DIRECTOR ; Being near Two Hundred safe and certain Receipts for the Cure of most Disorders incident to the Human Body. Also.

The whole art of Clear-Starching, Ironing, &c.

London : Printed for the AUTHORESS, and Sold by J. COOKE, No. 17, in Paternoster-row ; and by most other Booksellers in England.

Of whom may be had, Price One Shilling.‘

Stamford Mercury, 13 January, 1783.

Westend (or West End, as it is now written) is a parish in the borough of Eastleigh, just east of Southampton.  It not only boasts a brewery (perhaps near the site of this pub?), but is also the location of the Ageas Bowl, where Hampshire County Cricket Club has been based since 2001, and which has staged a number of international matches.  Hampshire is also famous in cricketing circles for the village of Hambledon – home of a famous team in the 18th century which defeated many county sides.

“A novel match of cricket was played on the 3d inst., between two female parties (married and single), in the field in the rear of a newly-erected public-house near Westend, Hampshire, kept by Mr. J. Vare. The fineness of the weather and the novelty of the scene drew together an immense concourse of spectators, who signified theri delight by repeated rounds of applause. Vehicles of every description were also in attendance, from the dashing phaeton and pair down to the humble donkey tandem: on the whole, there could not have been less than 3000 persons present. The playing commenced in right earnest at 12 o’clock, the married ladies going in first, and scoring 22 runs; the damsels then took the bat and scored 18. The dames then went in again and scored 27, making 49; the young ladies then went in and got 34, thus beating their opponents by three runs only. After the two first innings, bets varying from 2 to 1 to 5 to 2 were freely offered on the married ladies, and as freely taken. The fielding and batting of Miss Ann Cleaver, of Bitterne, and the Misses Caroline and Patience Lee, were particularly admired, indeed they may be safely backed against any three boys under 18. The bowling of Mrs. Carter on the married side was also very good. The p[eculliar manner of the ladies in stopping and catching, or attempting to catch the ball, was highly amusing. When the game was over they all sat down to a comfortable tea provided by the landlady, and concluded the day’s sport by a dance in the evening. It is proposed to play the return match on Saturday the 13th, at the New Inn, Westend. – Hampshire Adv.“

The Stamford Mercury, 12th October, 1838.

When it comes to revolutions, the English ones are far superior in every aspect: no massacres, no plundering, no opposition against the laws of the country. One may ask how we could call this a revolution. Perhaps the people didn’t care too much.

‘However it may be the cant of some politicians to compare the present revolution in France with the most celebrated of other countries, he who has read, and reflected on what Englishmen properly call the Glorious Revolution of 1688, will find an amazing difference in favour of the latter. In our revolution, there were no massacres, plundering, or burning, no opposition of the people against the national assembly ; it was the whole country, almost to a man, receding from the chains of tyranny, in order to secure their laws, their liberty and their property ; and this they happily effected almost without bloodshed, and under the sanction of the laws of the country. The sacrifice of one Dutch officer, and a few private soldiers, who fell in an accidental skirmish, sealed this glorious convenant between Prince and people, and formed that constitutional basis which is the wonder and the envy of surrounding nations.’

Stamford Mercury, 7 August, 1789.