Dr Allan
The following stories are from local newspapers. Not sure why he is called Allen and not Allan, also any spelling mistakes have not been corrected.
April 1881 An inquest was held at the Joddrell Arms into the death of a child whose decomposed body was found in Toddbrook Reservoir. Dr Allen had made the postmortem examination and found that the baby had lived a day or two. He was unable to say whether the child had suffocated or died from neglect. There was a bruise to the head but this had not caused death. The body 20 inches in length had been placed in a biscuit tin measuring only 9.5inches by 8.5 inches. The police were trying to detect the perpetrator, guilty of either murder or neglect
November 1886 A skeleton was discovered by workers at Taxal Edge Stone Quarry. The skull and bones were now in the posession of Dr Allen who had established that they had been there for at least 100 years.
November 1886 Mrs Pennington was pitched from her trap when the horse bolted and was very badly hurt. She was taken to the residence of Dr Allen where she now lay.
June 1887 Charles Bagshaw was badly injured in an accident at the Buxton Lime Company's colliery. A hand was smashed, his head was badly cut and an ear nearly severed. Dr Allen ordered his immediate removal to Stockport Infirmary where he lies in a critical condition.
August 1887 Edmund Kirk, a grocers assistant admitted savagely assaulting a little boy Hoprace Wooley. On the 29th the Wooley family, one of whom was a member of the Salvation Army, in their turn attacked Kirk. He was knocked down and kicked, had two teeth knocked out, both eyes made up and his whiskers pulled out. He lost a deal of blood and later Dr Allen had to attend to him.
February 1888 A mysterious death. George Sawyer of New Mills left home on Tuesday to go in search of work. He was seen just before midnight on Thursday at Horwich End and was drunk. At 2 am he was heard in a brook and some time later found unconscious in a yard behind The Navigation. He was lying in a pool of blood and had severe wounds to his head, elbow and knee. Dr Allen dressed his wound but alas, he died on Sunday.
October 1889 An explosion at Hall Brother's bleachworks fatally injured a youth, George Goddard. He was assisting in removing the top of a boiler filled with boiling pulp when the vessel expolded. He was hurled some distance and was severely scalded and burned. Dr Allen attended to him at home but he died early next day.
November 1889 Dr Allen was walking towards Stoneheads at 8.30pm to visit a patient. It was a dark night and he carried a lantern. Whilst walking along a path across a field a gun shot rang out about 20 yards away. Thinking of poachers he walked on only to hear another shot. From the flash he calculated that it was fired at him. A third shot struck the wall at his side. Alarmed, he retraced his steps are returned to safety. It was assumed that he was mistaked for the constable who had recently had several local people before the magistrates
March 1892 Dr Allen was appointed Medical Officer Of Health for Whaley Bridge at a salary of £20 per annum. At the same time John Kirk was appointed Inspector Of Nuisances
August 1892 The annual horse show was held at Buxton. The grandstand which seated 700 people collapsed without warning apart from mometary creaking. The occupants were pitched backwards amidst a mass of planking. The injured were conveyed to The Devonshire Hospital. The most seerious injury was to Dr Allen who sustained broken legs.
November 1892 Two boys, one 12 years old fought during their breakfast break at Botany Bleach Works where they were employed. One of the boys suffered knife wounds and was attended to by Dr Allen who said that the injury would have been fatal if a little higher.
March 1893 Dr Allen is caring for two men named Phillipson and Ether injured in an explosion at the Gunpowder Works.
May 1895 At a property auction at The Railway Hotel, Dr Allen purchased two semi detatched villas and a cottage at Horwich End for £590.
June 1896 Edith Proctor the 12 year old daughter of blacksmith Thomas Proctor died suddenly after becoming paralysed. It was thought to be caused by sunstroke but Dr Allen who gave no hope of recovery certified death from convulsions.
March 1898 Two joiners were seriously hurt when part of the Joddrell Arms collapsed. The front portion was being rebuit and enlarged and was supported by girders and pillars. A number of men were buried under a mass of stone and iron. Dr Allen attended to the injured.
December 1898 John Cotton was sentanced to death for the murder of his wife aboard a canal boat moored at Bugsworth. Mrs Cotton had been severely beaten about the head with a poker. When Dr Allen examined her she was unconscious and suffering from a number of wounds, was concussed and had a clot of blood on the brain and a fracture to the skull. He considered the case to be hopeless and she died that afternoon.
High Peak News
3 March 1888
WHALEY BRIDGE
Sudden death of a woman, strange conduct of a doctor
On Thursday afternoon Mr. R.G. Megginson, deputy-coroner, held an inquest at the Shepherd’s Arms Inn, Whaley Bridge, touching the death of Anne Jane Jodrell, aged 27 years, wife of Jonathan Jodrell, labourer, Horwich End, who died on Wednesday during confinement.
The Coroner said they had met to inquire into the cause of the death of Ann Jane Jodrell, who for some time past had been expecting her confinement, and for that reason she had secured the services of a midwife living in the neighbourhood.
Nature took its course sooner than was expected, and the midwife had not arrived, so they were obliged to run for a medical man.
They went to Dr Allan, and they succeeded in awakening him. He came either to the door or the window, and, being told the circumstances of the case and what was required, said: “Have you got a sovereign?”
The poor man (the husband) replied that he had not, and the doctor said: “I refuse to attend.” He did not attend, and the woman died.
They would hear the evidence as to these facts which he had opened to them and which he believed to be true.
Below are newspaper articles and letters regarding the death of Anne Jane Jodrell.
First Witness was Jonathan Jodrell, husband of the deceased.
Jonathan Jodrell, husband of the deceased, deposed that he was a labourer, living at Horwich End. His wife died about ten minutes to four on Wednesday morning. She was 27 years of age last May. They had been married eight years, and there was a family of three.
His wife had enjoyed very good health, and had always got over her confinements with out difficulty and without the assistance of a medical man; a midwife had been employed on such occasions. Rebecca Southern was the midwife’s name. Up to the time of being ill on this occasion his wife was in good health and strength, and no danger was apprehended.
The child was not expected to be born until the first week in April, and the midwife had not been given instructions to attend. Witness came home at ten minutes past eleven on Tuesday night, and found his wife at home apparently well. No one was with her. She said “I had given you up,” as he was so late.
After asking him if he would have some supper she said she would go to bed, as she had not felt very well during the day. They went to bed together about 11.30, but had not been there long before she said “I think you had better go and see Mrs Southern,” and he went at once. He found the midwife in bed and unable to attend through illness. He returned home, and upon his arrival there found the child born. He then ran to Horwich End for his mother and sister-in-law.
By the Coroner: The deceased said “the child was born all right.”
He afterwards fetched Mrs Holmes. He asked his wife how she was going on, and she replied “very well.”
By the Coroner: The child was alive. At twenty minutes past one he went to lie down, seeing that all was going on well.
The Coroner: “How long did you lie ?”
“They came and awakened me, and said “my Missis was worse, and I had better go and fetch Dr Allan.”
The Coroner: “Who awoke you ?”
“My sister-in-law, Catharine Jodrell.”
The Coroner: “Did you see the midwife first?”
“Yes; she came downstairs along with my sister-in-law. My sister-in-law told me I had better tell the Doctor to come at once, as the case was dangerous.”
The Coroner: “You went at once?”
“Yes, sir, I ran for him to his house.
The Coroner: “Did you see him?”
“Yes, I was knocking about 30 minutes before he came.”
The Coroner: “What did you say to him?”
“There is a place in the door where they put the letters in, and he put his face there and said, “What is your errand?” I said, “My wife has been confined; I want you to come as quick as you can, as there is danger.”
The Coroner: “You gave him distinctly to understand that it was a dangerous case?”
“Yes, sir.”
The Coroner: “He did not open the door?”
“No, sir.”
The Coroner: “You told him your name?”
“Yes, sir.”
The Coroner: “He put his mouth to the letter box?”
“Yes, sir.”
The Coroner: “What did he say to that?”
“He said he could not come without I had one guinea to give him before he went out of his own house.”
The Coroner: “Give me the words.”
He said, “Have you had Mrs. Southern?” (midwife) and I said “No, she is ill in bed, and we could get no one only a neighbour.” “Well,” he said, “In a case of this sort, I pretend to have notice, and before I go I have a guinea put down.” I said, “It is not in my power to lay a guinea down, I have not got it.” He said, “Well, I shan’t go without, neither for you nor anybody else. I’ll tell you what to do: You apply to the Workhouse, Chapel-en-le-Frith, they employ doctors for such men as you there.”
[Sensation, and a Voice, “That is hard lines.”]
The Coroner: “You did not see him at all?”
Witness: “I could just see his face; it was moonlight.”
The Coroner: “Just saw him through the hole?”
“Yes.”
The Coroner: “You told him you had not a sovereign?”
“I told him I had not a guinea.”
The Coroner: “You had none in the house, I suppose?”
“No.”
The Coroner: “Did you say “Do come?”
“I did; I begged of him hard to come.”
The Coroner: Did you say you would see that he was paid?”
“I did; I told him I would pay him to-night (Thursday), as it was my pay night at the railway.”
The Coroner: “He knew you?”
“Yes.”
The Coroner: “What did he say after that?”
“He said very little; he said it was no use me trying to persuade him to come, as he did not go until he had received the money.”
The Coroner: “Is he a married man?”
“Yes, sir.”
The Coroner: “Did you tell him the child had been born?”
“I did, sir.”
The Coroner: “He positively refused and told you to go to Chapel-en-le-Frith Workhouse, where they kept a doctor for such men as you?”
“Yes, sir.”
The Coroner: “And that it was no use you stopping there?”
“Yes sir; he closed the shutter (letter box) before I left the door.”
The Coroner: “Was he cross?”
“No, sir.”
The Coroner: “You are quite sure you gave him to understand the exigencies of the case?”
“I told him straight that the child had been born so long, and that we wanted him to come as soon as
possible, as she was dangerously ill.”
The Coroner: “You told him she was dangerously ill?”
“Yes. As I was going down the road I met my sister-in-law, and she said, “Go and try to get him to come, as she is in a fit or something.” I went a second time and knocked about 20 minutes. He came to the door and I said, “I want you to come doctor, as my missis is there in a fit or something. I will see that you are paid this week.” He said, “I shan’t go a yard; it is no use you coming here unless you have it.” I said, “It is impossible for me to give it. I have a wife and family to keep, and have not got it. It is not all labouring men who have a guinea in a case of this sort, especially as it has come five weeks earlier.” He said, “That does not matter. You will have to go to Chapel-en-le-Frith and have a doctor there. I shan’t go.”
So I came up and told my mother. My missis was unconscious then. I told my mother and the woman who was in the room with her. My mother put her hand in her pocket and gave me the cupboard keys, and said “run over and fetch it, if a guinea will save her life, we will have him here.”
The Coroner: “Did you go to the doctor again?”
“No, sir. I went as quick as ever I could to fetch the money, but when I returned to my own house to give my mother her keys, my wife was dead.” The Coroner: “Have you known Mr. Allan during the time you have lived here?”
“Oh yes, sir.”
The Coroner: “And spoken to him?”
“Yes, sir. He has attended me once.”
The Coroner: “Have you paid him?”
“Yes, sir, he is my club doctor. I was never under his care but one fortnight, about seven years since.”
The Coroner: “He knew you so intimately as to be acquainted with your usual habits?”
“Yes, sir.”
The Coroner: “You are a sober man--you look like it?”
“Yes, sir; I never hardly take drink.”
The Coroner: “What are your wages?”
“18s. a week and they take 2d. off for insurance.”
The Coroner: “You never have had a misunderstanding with this doctor?” “No, sir; I’ll tell you what he did. I was taken ill with inflammation, and had to go home, and we sent six times for the doctor before we could get him to come.”
The Coroner: “Although he was your club doctor?”
“Yes, sir.”
The Coroner: “You say you are quite sure your wife was in perfect health before?”
“Yes, sir; she was.”
The Coroner: “She had had no injury or fall or anything?”
“No, sir; I don’t think she has cost me 5s. in physic since we were married. I never had a doctor’s bill for her or the children.”
The Coroner: “Would any gentleman of the jury like to put a question?
I have kept him a long time, and it is a painful ordeal he must have gone through.
The jury did not ask the witness any questions.
Second Witness was Edna Holmes, a charwoman.
She said the last witness called her up to go to his wife.
The deceased died about twenty minutes past four.
The Coroner: “Are you of opinion that if a medical man had come to attend to that poor woman she would have got over it?”
“No, I don’t think that she would. I told Mr Jodrell that there was something wrong, and that he must go to the doctor.”
The Coroner: “What induced him to go to the doctor?”
“She had changed colour. She was not her own colour. When there is no pain there must be something wrong.”
The Coroner: “You felt at a loss how to act?”
“I bandaged her up as tight as I could.”
The Coroner: “You don’t think the doctor would have been of any assistance?” “Well, I can’t say; I think not. It surprised me that the child was living, for it was quite cold. I could not say that he would have saved her life, but it would have been more satisfaction if he had attended her.”
The Coroner: “Does Mr Allan usually attend confinements?”
“Yes, if they are very particular, but he must have the money in his hand before he goes, or he won’t go.”
The Coroner: “Is that his invariable rule?”
“Yes.”
The Coroner: “You have known him do that before?”
“Yes.”
The Coroner: “What sort of people are they that he attends; does he attend poor people?”
“Yes, sir.”
The Coroner: “He will have a difficulty if he confines his services to the rich. He is the parish doctor.”
The Coroner: “You can’t say the attendance of a medical man would have saved the life of the patient, though it might have done?”
“It might have done.”
The Coroner: “You have known these people?”
“Yes, they are decent, respectable people, and have always lived very comfortably.”
“She had complained of a pain in her side?”
The Coroner: “People generally do when they are like her.”
The summing-up by The Coroner
The Coroner, in summing up, said it had been a long time since he heard a more pitiful story than that which had been unveiled by the man Jodrell. He had no doubt he was known to everyone of them, and he (the Coroner) was very much deceived if he had formed an erroneous opinion that a better, or more decent and thoroughly honest man could have existed. He appeared to have been in the regular employ of a good railway company, and where his wages were sure. Well, he and his wife had lived together happily for eight years, and during that time, he told them, she had not cost him a farthing for doctors.
He had had three or four children, and the whole of them had been born without any mishap whatever.
When he returned home on Tuesday night, at eleven o’clock, he found his wife sitting up for him. She had been expecting him all day, and had given him up, thinking he was not coming. They went to bed together, she saying she did not feel very well. Pains came upon her, and the man runs off for a midwife. They had heard the evidence, and were quite capable of forming an opinion. If the man was not a truthful, honest and decent man, he was grievously mistaken. When he found he could not get one person he came back home. He found that the child was born.
Then he goes back for the medical man, and after knocking for half-an-hour he aroused him from his bed. He does not take the trouble to open the door, but talks to him through the slit in the letter box.
He is there told the circumstances of the case, that the woman has been prematurely confined, that she is lying there a death’s door; he is earnestly implored to come to their assistance.
He says, “I never come without a guinea.” He had a perfect right to say that. The man says, “You know who I am, you are my club doctor. I shall have my wages on Thursday, and I will pledge you my word that I’ll pay it.” He goes again with the same result, and he turns him off and says, “Go to the Workhouse at Chapel-en-le-Frith, they have medical men there for such cases as yours. I won’t come. I never do come without my guinea.”
In consequence of that the poor man is driven almost to distraction; he goes back to his mother and gets his coveted guinea from her. Whilst the grass is growing the horse starves; the poor woman is dead; she is beyond recall. The Jury could for their own opinion of these hard, stern facts.
He (the Coroner) did not like to express an opinion. As he had said, any medical man had a right to charge what he chose, but he (the Coroner) could not see how it was to be reconciled with the ordinary principles of humanity. The man could do as he chose. Medical men attended with scrupulous nicety to almost every case; he never knew a case where a medical man declined to go in a case of emergency.
It was a hard life, that of a country surgeon, an extremely hard life, and he knew, professionally, that a worse paid class of men didn’t exist. They had of course to give that their consideration. But the woman died, and the verdict would be that she died in childbirth. They could express their sympathy with the poor man under his bereavement. He did not see that they could come to any other conclusion.
Mr George Pearson, foreman of the jury, after a couple of minutes’ deliberation, said they were unanimously of opinion that the deceased died in childbirth.
The conduct of the doctor was referred to in strong terms by the jury, it being considered a cruel thing
to tell the man he might go to the Workhouse.
Deep sympathy is felt for the bereaved husband throughout the village.
A Letter by Dr Allan, 7th March 1888
To the Editor
Sir,
A report has appeared in your paper dated March 3rd of an inquest held at Whaley Bridge, on a woman who died after childbirth, and whom I refused to attend.
The remarks made upon that occasion are so extraordinary, so uncalled for, and so calculated to do me professional harm, that I feel bound not to pass them over in the silence which they deserve.
It is surely a monstrous thing that without giving me any intimation of the inquest, which was held without my knowledge, the Coroner, whose office above all others requires a judicial weighing of facts and evidence, should accept the statements of an angry and interested person without being aware of what I had to say on the subject.
Not merely so, but he commences his remark to the jury by a serious statement, which shows a carelessness rather more important, but of the same kind, displayed all through the case.
He is made in your report to say that I was called in directly after the birth of the child, whereas the fact is that I was sent for four hours after that occurrence; four hours during which the unfortunate woman was being manipulated by a charwoman, during which it was the duty of the husband to have gone for Dr Anderson if he could not pay me, during which medical assistance might very well have been obtained, and at the end of which the woman was in a dying condition and beyond my skill.
It is surely a singular thing that the Coroner should have allowed himself to make remarks calculated to damage my professional standing, and should have failed to ascertain exactly the cause of death, and therefore where the responsibility lay.
Although I hope I should not fail to attend to the claims of humanity, yet I do not recognize that the public have any right to expect from me gratuitous services, and I claim the right to refuse attendance where I please.
Especially do I consider myself entitled to refuse attending in a case of child-birth which has been four hours unnecessarily treated by a charwoman.
I do not see that it is any necessary part of the duties of a medical man to remove by his mere presence the responsibilities naturally attaching to others.
Had the Coroner, instead of expressing a maudlin sympathy with the husband, informed himself as to the actual events of the case and reprimanded him for not securing medical assistance in the ample time at his disposal, it seems to me that his observations would have been more to the purpose.
Much of the conversation reported in your paper was between Jodrell and myself is so obviously imaginary, under the circumstances, that it is not worth discussing.
But his statement about calling six times on me to attend him for inflammation as his club doctor is an absolute falsehood, and, in fact, would be equivalent to my dismissal as medical attendant to the club, and he knows that.
It is curious that this should only come up after seven years, during which I have maintained very good relations with the club.
Yours &c.,
Whaley Bridge, March 7th 1888.
H. Allan, MB
A Letter to the High Peak News by A. Vicar, 10th March 1888
High Peak News
10 March 1888
The sudden death of a woman at whaley bridge
To the Editor
Sir,
I trust I may be allowed to express an opinion on the subject placed before the readers of your valuable paper last Saturday under the above title.
Being one of those persons who take some little interest in the conditions of life which surround the working classes of this and other countries, my travels in search of information and statistics have led me to witness many horrible and distressing scenes both in England and in Ireland, but I do not think that I ever saw, heard or read of anything more inhuman than the conduct of Dr Allan of Whaley Bridge, on the morning of Wednesday, the 29th February, in refusing to attend Mrs Jodrell simply because her husband could not place the fee (one guinea) in his hand before he stepped out of his house.
From the summing up of the Coroner it appears that Mr Jodrell was an honest hardworking man, and from the evidence it is clear that the doctor knew the husband of the deceased well enough to be acquainted with his usual habits, having spoken to him at times, and attended him once as his club doctor. Yet in spite of all this he had the callousness to refuse to attend the dying woman.
Had he not known the people, or even had he been certain that he would never have received his fee, he could scarcely have been justified in refusing to attend when life was in danger, and it passes any comprehension how the jury could come to the unanimity of opinion that they did.
Just below the report of the above case you have a short paragraph which states a Buxtonian is to be prosecuted for cruelty to animals for allowing three horses to be in a field on the Buxton Road during the late storm, without food. Are horses, in the opinion of the people of Whaley Bridge, of more consequence than the lives of human beings?
Surely someone will have the courage to take this matter in hand, and with the support of the inhabitants, bring the doctor to task; because it is an exceptionally hard case, and the treatment meted out to the fervent supplicant on that unhappy morning deserves to be punished.
Trusting that someone connected with the district will take the matter in hand.
Yours &c
Archibald Vicar
Prestwich, near Manchester
5th March 1888.
A Letter by Jonathan Jodrell, 12th March 1888
High Peak News
17 March 1888
The sudden death of a woman at whaley bridge
To the Editor
Sir,
May I be allowed to give an answer to the letter sent to you by Dr Allan, of Whaley Bridge, dated March 7th, respecting the death of and inquest on my wife?
The inquest, he says, was held without his knowledge; but if he had had his ears and eyes open he would both have seen and heard what was going on, as the sad occurrence was the whole village gossip.
In his letter he says that my wife was “manipulated for four hours by a charwoman.” I am prepared to state as truth that the charwoman never “manipulated” her at all, except to bandage her, which, I believe, was necessary in the case. As your readers will remember, I stated at the inquest that the child was born at ten minutes past twelve o’clock, and I was running about the village for assistance about one hour and twenty minutes. When I had got assistance at my wife’s request I went to lie down, as to all appearance everything was going on well.
I had been laid down about an hour when my sister-in-law and the charwoman came downstairs and told me I had better go for Dr Allan, as the case was dangerous, which I did.
I got to his door about twenty minutes to three o’clock, and was knocking there for thirty-five minutes before I could raise him from his bed. But had I been aware that I should have met with such an inhuman reception I should most certainly have gone for Dr Anderson, of Chapel-en-le-Frith, or Dr Nall, of Disley, either of whom I might have got while I was knocking at Dr Allan’s door, and without applying for the parish to pay the fee for me.
The next time I went I was knocking at his door about twenty minutes, and I am sure that he could not have had time to have gone to sleep again, as I was only away from his door about five minutes.
If Dr Allan thinks it would do him any good I am quite willing that my wife should be taken from her grave and a post-mortem examination made of her body, to show the country at large in what way the charwoman had “manipulated” her. Had I not done my duty as far as I could to secure medical aid the Coroner and his jury might have brought in a verdict of manslaughter against me, which would only have been my just reward; and I think that, instead of the doctor chastising the Coroner for what he said at the inquest he ought to be very thankful he did not speak in stronger words.
In his letter the doctor does not seem satisfied with the great loss that I have had to bear in the death of my wife, but he also wishes to rob me of my character, as he says my statement is untrue.
Every word that I spoke at the inquest I am fully prepared to repeat either before a Coroner and his jury or in a court of justice.
He also speaks of his good relationship with the club and the other clubs in the village.
Perhaps the reason is there are no other doctors resident in Whaley Bridge at present, and “Any port is acceptable in a storm.”
Yours, &c.,
Jonathan Jodrell
Whaley Bridge, March 12th, 1888.
A Letter by A.H.Colles, 13th March 1888
To the Editor
Sir,
Under the above heading an account of an inquest is reported, that I think is unique.
A Deputy-coroner states a case against a respected doctor, who has lived and done hard work in the neighbourhood of Whaley Bridge for at least 14 years, as if, instead of being what he is, he were the vilest monster; but I feel sure that not one sensible person who has carefully read the report, and who is in the least degree removed from the state that is best described as maudlin, or who has the least knowledge of doctors and their troubles, but must deeply sympathise with Dr Allan.
Kindly allow me to state the case according to the report, and then allow me to say a few words in explanation.
At about 11.30 at night a woman feels the pangs of labour, and a midwife is sent for, but she is ill and cannot attend. Another person is got to attend, and a child is born. Four hours after, and the initiated will know what that means, a doctor is sent for, and the doctor is told the case. From what he is told the doctor knows he can do nothing to help the woman and that if he goes it will be merely to take the responsibility off those who had attended the case, and who were responsible.
The result proved the doctor is right. The doctor was not roused till after four o’clock, and, according to the evidence, the woman died at 4.20.
The Deputy-coroner, in his summing up, says: “When he (Jodrell) found he could not get one person he came back home. He found that the child was born. Then he goes for the medical man.”
The above was that much of a truth that is worse than a lie.
The facts are (I quote from your report) that “when he could not get one person” he did not then go to the medical man, but went for his mother and sister-in-law, and afterwards for Mrs Holmes. At 1.20 the husband went to lie down, and afterwards having been called up by one of the women, went to the medical man, whom he did not arouse till past four o’clock.
The Deputy-coroner further says: “He (the doctor) does not trouble to open the door.”
Persons got hurriedly out of their beds before daybreak in winter weather are not, as a rule, fond of exposing their persons to the cold air, but that does not matter to the Deputy-coroner. (What?)
Again, the Deputy-coroner says: “He (the doctor) is then told the circumstances of the case.”
Yes and what are the circumstances of the case?
Why, that the doctor was not called until the woman was so near dead that the doctor could do no good. Read the evidence of Mrs Holmes, who, after being twice pressed by the Deputy-coroner, to say that a doctor could have saved the woman, she says “I could not say that he would have saved her life, but it would have been more satisfaction if he had attended her.”
Exactly so, and the “more satisfaction” would have been that there would have been no Deputy-coroner’s inquest.
Mrs Holmes says “he (Dr Allan) must have the money in his hand before he goes (to confinements) or he won’t go.”
Now the fact is, and please bear this in mind, that never but once in fourteen years did Dr Allan ever receive his fee until after his professional work was done, and in that one case he was on his way to the patient when the money was handed to him. (I wonder how he knows that)
The Deputy-coroner is reported to have said “he never knew a case where a medical man declined to go in a case of emergency.”
Happy man! I could in my small experience instance many cases.
Quite recently, in a similar case to the one now under discussion, four doctors one after another declined to move. Another case, which happened within the last six months, and not a great distance from here, three doctors declined to turn out at night, though the patient was believed to be in extremis. And these cases are not exceptional.
If doctors think they can do good they as a rule answer any summons; and I am as sure as that I am writing this that if Dr Allan thought he could have done one bit of good, and that he was not being made a cat’s paw of, he would have gone to the case referred to through rain, hail, or snow, independent of the guinea or of any fee whatever.
I should deeply grieve to say one word that should add another pang to what Jodrell must have felt at the loss of his wife, and, therefore, I will merely trust that what he said before the Deputy-coroner he thought was true, but if that philanthropist Archibald Vickers (whose name by-the-bye I can’t find in the latest edition of “Slater’s Directory”), likes to make enquiries into the case, I will willingly give a day with him to the matter, and go to Whaley Bridge to find out how much truth there is in what Jodrell deposed.
I can speak from long experience of Dr Allan’s invariable kindness in cases of real illness.
The Bible tells us to “beware of that man of whom all speak well,” and Dr Allan, no doubt, has his detractors, he has too little patience with those whose ailments are fancied or magnified to please all, and it is many a guinea he has lost to himself by being too honest to prescribe physic where none was needed. He speaks too straightly for some, but under the seeming roughness there is a kindness that I am sure the majority of the people well know how to appreciate.
A hard blow has been struck at Dr Allan, but from what I know of the Whaley Bridge people after a long residence amongst them they will rally round him and see that justice is done.
I have extended this letter to a greater length than I intended, but the seriousness of the subject must be my excuse.
Yours, &c,
A. H. Colles
1, Belmont, Higher Broughton, Manchester
March 13th 1888.
A Neighbour of Dr Allan sent a Letter in support of him
To the Editor
“we mon hear ‘tother side.”
Sir,
Such was the remark of an illiterate but just villager on hearing the censure passed upon Dr Allan by the Coroner.
Another man, a collier, black as the pit from which he had just come, indignantly exclaimed against the said censure, and in manly and grateful tones told what Dr Allan had done for his “missis,” when he at midnight, and just in from a long drive to a distant patient, at once mounted his horse and started again for a ride of several miles to attend her.
In my own family, and especially during a severe and dangerous illness of my wife, I shall never forget his skill, kindness and unremitting attention. Much similar testimony could be mentioned but ‘tis needless.
The “people of Whaley Bridge,” knowing all sides of the question, can judge for themselves, and are not likely to take the advice of your correspondent “A. Vicars”, “to bring to task” the doctor who has laboured amongst us for 14 years.
We are tempted instead to give a little advice all round.
First to the Coroner, in such cases as the very sad one referred to, to find out the cause of death, that the censure may rest with the really blameable, and a warning be given to those who venture to undertake what they know little or nothing about; secondly to the accoucheuse, a kind-hearted laundress and charwoman, to seek medical aid promptly, not when the lapse of time has rendered it useless; and lastly to “A. Vicars,” to temper his warm-hearted impulse with the remembrance that there is a “tother side” to all such questions.
Yours, &c.,
C.A. Johnstone
Glen Albyn, Whaley Bridge.
A Second Letter by A. Vicar, 19th March 1888
High Peak News
24 March 1888
The sudden death of a woman at whaley bridge
To the Editor
Sir,
I was extremely sorry that, having been called away from Manchester on business, I was unable to answer the letter of Dr Allan, but there are now two other letters to reply to, and one to comment upon, and I hope that I may be allowed to fulfill the duty which has devolved upon me on account of my writing the first letter, and also justify my action in that respect.
I propose, with your permission, to deal with the letters in the order they appear in your paper, selecting Dr Allan’s first.
After attacking the coroner, he states that it was four hours after the birth of the child that he was sent for, during which time “the unfortunate woman was being manipulated by a charwoman, during which it was the duty of the husband to have gone for Dr Anderson if he could not pay me.” In the next paragraph he writes, “Although I hope I should not fail to attend to the claims of humanity, yet I do not recognize that the public have any right to expect from me gratuitous services, and I claim the right to refuse attendance where I please.
Paragraph 4 contains the following excuse: ”I do not see that it is any necessary part of the duties of a medical man to remove by his mere presence the responsibilities naturally attaching to others,” and in the last paragraph puts forward his continued good relations with the club as evidence of the falsehood of Mr. Jodrell’s statement as to his having to be called six times, which if true, he states, would be equivalent to his dismissal; but in reply I would point out that he being the only doctor in the village is enabled to do many things with impunity which he would be afraid to do if there was any opposition in his profession.
It is my intention to deal with the above quotations in their order:
First, It was, according to the statement of Mr. Jodrell, which he is prepared to uphold on oath before a jury, that it was three hours and a half after the birth of the child when he arrived at the doctor’s house, and was knocking there for thirty-five minutes before he got an answer, and had he been aware of the reply he would have gone to Chapel-en-le-Frith or Disley for a doctor, and would have been able to procure assistance during the time he wasted in knocking at the door, and he would willingly have paid the attendance fee himself.
As for the woman being “manipulated by a charwoman,” Mr. Jodrell shows his sincerity in the matter by offering to have his wife taken from the grave, and a post-mortem examination made of her body.
Second, He makes the case worse because, after recognising the claims of humanity, he contends that no one has a right to expect gratuitous service from him, and claims the right to refuse attendance where he pleases. In this case he was certain of payment, because he knew where the man lived and worked, and had known him for several years, besides which he had the power by law to distrain for his debt, if not paid. So his excuse is nullified. With regard to his right to refuse attendance, had there been another doctor in the village I would not question his right so much; but seeing that he is the only medical advisor in the place, I hold that he is bound to attend whenever and wherever he is required.
Third, He excuses himself on the ground that if he had gone he would have had to bear the responsibility. But, as in the former part of his letter, and the evidence of Mr. Jodrell, he shows clearly that he would have been quite willing to have accepted the responsibility had he received his guinea, which points, in my opinion, to selfishness, and does away entirely with that excuse.
Leaving Dr Allan, I come to “A.H. Colles,” who reiterates in his second paragraph what the doctor said; but, as I have clearly pointed out above, the doctor was quite willing to have accepted the responsibility providing he secured his fee.
In the seventh paragraph of his letter he endeavours to justify the action of Dr Allan by stating that in his experience he could give many cases of a similar kind; and instances one quite recently where four doctors refused to move. But I contend that the case in Salford (if that is the one to which he refers) is not a fair comparison.
I hardly know how to answer his eighth paragraph, where he endeavours to make capital out of the fact that my name is not in the new edition of “Slater’s Directory,” but I should like to inform him that I have no particular desire to publish my name in every advertising spot on the face of the earth, but if he wishes to communicate with me privately he has nothing whatever to do but write my name correctly, and address the envelope as below, because I am sufficiently well-known for such letters to reach their destination.
We of the middle and upper class are too apt to treat with indifference and contempt the sufferings of those who create our wealth, but I flatter myself that my experience short though it may have been, has been sufficient to make me renounce once and for all the class prejudice which is so prevalent amongst the well-to-do portion of society.
With regard to the last letter, that of “C.A. Johnstone,” who apparently is in such circumstances as to be able to command the services of any doctor at any time, owing to his position, I would recommend to his careful perusal and thought the latter portion of my reply to “A.H. Colles.”
Now for my comments, which will necessarily be brief, owing to the compulsory length of my reply to controversial matter.
To my mind the case appears as follows: It is a cold winter’s morning. A doctor is suddenly aroused out of his sleep by a loud knocking at his door. Instead of seeing who the visitor is he waits to see if he will depart, but at last he is compelled to attend at the door, and finds that a poor man (who cannot pay his fee until he receives his wage) wishes the doctor to attend his wife, who is taken ill in childbirth. He, taking into consideration (in my opinion) the condition of the weather, refuses to go, and excuses himself on the ground that the man cannot pay him at once. The poor woman dies, the man is almost distracted with grief, an inquest is held, and the doctor censured. That is practically the case in a nutshell.
Now, had it been “C.A. Johnstone” instead of Mr. J. Jodrell who had awakened him, I have no doubt he would have attended without a murmur, therefore I contend that some satisfaction other than that which he has given in his letter is required, and I hope he will see the justice of the demand. I should like to comment further on the matter, but consideration for your space forbid, and I sincerely hope that the importance of the case will in your opinion be sufficient apology for the length of this letter.
Yours &c,
Archibald Vicar
Prestwich, 19th March 1888.
Two more letters from readers
To the Editor
Sir,
In the High Peak News of March 17th appears a letter from A.H. Colles, and from the beginning to the end of the one-sided epistle the Doctor who told the poor man Jodrell “they kept doctors at Chapel-en-le-Frith Workhouse for such men as him” is sheltered.
But the cloak is a perforated one.
If Dr Allan had lived and “done hard work” at Whaley Bridge for at least 114 years it would not have justified him as a parish doctor in refusing to listen to the appeal of Jodrell. The Deputy-Coroner “stated his case” as he thought proper, and did not express himself as the Coroner would have done, if I am not, after carefully reading the account of the inquest which W.H. Colles thinks “unique,” mistaken. There are some wonderful paraphrases in that letter. “As if he were the vilest monster.”
Good words, and applicable, think I, as one who does not claim to be included in W.H. Colles’ category of “sensible persons.” Who does he mean, or what does he mean, by “who is in the least degree removed from the state that is best described as maudlin”! Is it Jodrell? If so he, poor chap, has had more than enough to cause him to be in such a condition. Is it the Deputy-Coroner? Or the “at least 14 years’ hard worked doctor,” or W.H. Colles? I should like to know. It is, however, so stated in the letter as to be an unknown quantity, so I leave it to those who have “the most knowledge of doctors and their troubles, but most deeply sympathise with Jodrell” for all that.
I have not extended this letter to any great length and therefore ask but to be excused for not putting my name to it; I am not the only earner of 17s 10d a-week who might get into difficulties were his name handed about in newspapers.
Yours &c,
Quack
High Street, Whaley Bridge, March 21st.
High Peak News
31 March 1888
The sudden death of a woman at whaley bridge
To the Editor
Sir,
With your permission I would like to ask the writers of the numerous letters that have been inserted in the High Peak News what their object is. One section of them pitches into Dr Allan just as mercilessly as though he were guilty of something very atrocious – I don’t say he is, and I don’t say he is not – and the other section stand up in his defence, and parry with a good deal of skill all the many thrusts made. The doctor did act a bit thoughtlessly there is no doubt, and he has had dubbing enough for it, but what the dickens is the use of carrying the war to the knife as is being done.
Jodrell must feel satisfied at the rating.
At the inquest plain facts, and unvarnished I should say, came out, and all the controversial matter we have seen in print has adduced nothing beyond a sort of grammatical analysis of whatever your correspondents think fit to put to paper. Let another man go to Dr Allan’s any time he likes to choose, and he will receive that attention which the importance of his case calls for, you may rest assured.
Archibald Vicar’s view of the case is that the weather stopped him from turning out, and the non-production of the spade ace kept his surgical skill from displaying itself. Here’s another view. The doctor thought a midwife had the case in hand, and as she had successfully performed many similar operations (not “manipulative”), did not suppose but that she would do this.
Yours &c,
Unbiassed
Horwich End
Mar. 27th 1888.
A Third Letter by A. Vicar, 7th April 1888
High Peak News
7th April 1888
The sudden death of a woman at whaley bridge
To the Editor
Sir, -- I am very much surprised to find that Dr Allan has not endeavoured to refute the charges which I made against him in your issue of the 24th March, but seems to consider that his position will be better defended if left to the subtilty of friends and relations. If his allies are willing to call a public meeting in accordance with the suggestion of your correspondent “Observer,” with a view to clearing him from the charges which have been made against him, I am willing to attend the same meeting to substantiate the accusations which I have made, for
I dare do all that may become a man,
Who dares do more is none.
and I feel quite confident that I should be able to vindicate my position in the opinion of the meeting against the combined efforts of my three opponents, as
Thrice armed is he who hath his quarrel just.
It is rather astonishing also that his specious defender, who sprang into the controversy with the evident desire to make everybody think he was a descendant of the “Anarchy,” on whose brow Shelly saw inscribed the following words:--
I am God, and King, and Law,
has not had the manliness to either adhere to his position or to withdraw the insinuations which he has made, but trusts rather to surreptitious means to relieve his indignation.
“A.H. Colles” informs us that he can speak from long experience of Dr Allan’s kindness, and states as a positive fact that only once in fourteen years has he received his fee before his work was done. In the same letter he proffered to give a day with me to make enquiries into the matter, but he has been so long in making his appointment that I went over to Whaley Bridge to make enquiries for myself, the result of which I intend to give below.
Before dealing with the case itself, I feel compelled to mention an incident which took place on the evening of the 24th ultimo at the “Tableaux Vivante,” arranged by a lady, who resides in the district, in aid of the Restoration Fund of a church. I regret to say that Mr. Colles, who in his capacity as chairman of the meeting, had some selections from Shakespeare to read, used the opportunity as a means of casting a reflection on his opponents by quoting from a play of “Othello” the words of Iago:
Who steals my purse, steals trash ; ‘tis something, nothing,
‘Twas mine, ‘tis his, and has been slave to thousands ;
But he that filches from me my good name,
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.
Though, as the old adage says, “Birds of a feather flock together,” I am happy to think that his remarks met with the approval of only some half-dozen of those who were present, and I have no doubt he will have received encouragement from that quarter, and, in the words of the joyful hymn, “There will be no parting there,” but I know from experience that it is an easy matter for would-be aristocrats to procure a few suckling sycophants to chant their praises, whatever may be the depth to which their actions have descended. His action would be entirely justifiable, seeing that he himself has not taken the trouble to ascertain the facts of the case he has been writing about. I am always careful in controversies of any description of the language I use, but when a man implies in a meeting where he cannot be answered that I and others wish to damage his character, I shall treat him as a calumniator and a villain, nor shall any protection shelter him from the treatment which he deserves. I shall on such an occasion without scruple trample upon all those forms with which wealth and dignity entrench themselves, nor shall anything but age restrain my resentment; age which always brings with it one privilege, that of being insolent and supercilious without punishment. I will not sit unconcerned while my liberty is invaded, nor look in silence on public calumny. I will exert my endeavours at whatever hazard to repel the aggressor, and wring from him a full and complete apology.
It is past my comprehension where “A.H. Colles” went in search of information when after his search and his long residence in Whaley Bridge he was only able to find this one case of negligence on the part of Dr Allan. I am afraid he is like one of those of whom we are told they are deaf because they will not hear, or blind because they will not see, and that he was determined to be both deaf and blind when he went on his round seeking for the truth. It seems rather strange that I, a comparative stranger to the place, should be able in one afternoon to collect more information than “A.H. Colles” had been able to collect in fourteen years. Should it be necessary I shall be prepared at a future date to have the evidence of my informants placed in a court of law and attested to on oath. Having then shown the sincerity of my espousal of the case by my desire to obtain the truth, and having by enquiry disproved the assertions of “A.H. Colles”, I now call upon Dr Allan to give some explanation of his conduct, and upon “A.H. Colles” to withdraw the language which he has used and to apologise for it.
Should he still disdain to move in the manner I have indicated it will be necessary for me, however regrettable, to take other means to attain the desired result; and should he not reply to this letter in your next issue, as a preliminary step to those means above mentioned, I shall publish the private correspondence between “A.H. Colles” and myself.
Yours &c,
Archibald Vicar.
Prestwich, 3rd April 1888.
Another Letter by A.H.Colles, 21st April 1888
High Peak News
21 April 1888
Sudden death of a woman at whaley Bridge
To the Editor
Sir,
If I had wished to reply to the attack made upon me in your issue of the 7th inst. by “A. Vicar” I could not have done so last week, as I was under the ban of a fearful (?) threat, which the sapient “A. Vicar,” boy-like held over my head.
He threatened that unless I replied to his letter he would publish some correspondence that had passed between us. This didn’t frighten me very much; and being anxious that the public should see how superlatively ridiculous such a threat was, I purposely refrained from replying, hoping and expecting that the said correspondence will appear in the same issue as this, for has not “A. Vicar” said “I shall publish the private correspondence.”
But don’t be alarmed, dear readers. You may safely read it; there is nothing shocking in it, no bad language, nothing half so bad as in “A. Vicar’s” last letter; in fact, except that he dates from “The Country Forum” and talks of his friends in the House of Commons, there is nothing even to laugh at, so why the correspondence is to be published I can’t tell.
When my former letter was written it was penned most temperately and to the point. I have just read it over, and find that except for the word “maudlin,” which surely is not a very savage word, and the word “philanthropist,” which I now apologise for using in connection with “A. Vicar’s” name, there is not a single word that even a young lady or an ordinary sensitive boy could cavil at. The case rested more on a plain statement of it than upon any strong language; and from all that comes to my ears the great majority of the Whaley Bridge people are satisfied that nothing more is required to be said in further vindication of the subject of that letter.
“A. Vicar” strongly objects to my quotation about robbing men of their good names; but before this is finished “A. Vicar” will be convicted by himself of being a robber of the meanest kind. “A. Vicar” quotes, in reference to himself, “I dare do all,” &c., but it shall be left to those who know the remainder of the quotation, who have read “A. Vicar’s” last letter, and who see his robbery, plagiarism, or whatever you like to call it, in this, to say whether he has not done more than “may become a man,” an, as a logical consequence, “is none.”
From his last letter I am inclined to think “A. Vicar” only a boy, perhaps a youth. Now, don’t let this vex “A. Vicar,” for youth is no disgrace, if it be found in the paths of innocence. My reason for judging him a “simple youth” is that he speaks of me as a very old man, for he goes on “Nor shall anything but age restrain my resentment.” I ought to be glad my appearance misled “A. Vicar” as so my age; for has it not saved me from his resentment?
“A. Vicar” describes me as one “who sprang into the controversy with the evident desire to make everybody think he was a descendant of the ‘Anarchy.’ “ Now, could a sensible person ever suppose for one moment that anyone would wish to be thought a descendant of the “Anarchy”? Why would they?
It would be quite out of reason to expect to be allowed to take up your valuable space by going seriatim over every line of “A. Vicar’s” letter, though every line is a joke in some form; but please let me cull a few of the expressions he uses in respect of me and my friends for writing the letter which I refer to at the beginning of this.
“Specious defender,” --- (will “A. Vicar” kindly look up his dictionary and see what “specious” means, and then explain how it applies?) – “would-be aristocrats,” “suckling sycophants,” “calumniator,” “villain,” “wealth and dignity,” “insolent,” “supercilious,” “aggressor.” Now, I would have forgiven “A. Vicar” the “suckling sycophant,” &c., if he had only spared me the bitter irony of connecting my name with “wealth and dignity.” Why, everybody at Whaley Bridge knows how lamentably deficient I am of the former and my writing this quite proves my want of the latter.
If “A. Vicar” will only apologise for ironically alluding to my “wealth and dignity,” and will retract the words “would-be aristocrat,” I really will forgive him. Perhaps he is already punished too much, for his mental anguish must have been great, or how could he write “I will not sit unconcerned while my liberty is invaded?” Who, in the name of fortune, has threatened to invade his liberty? Or who ever wanted to stop him exerting his “endeavour, at whatever hazard, to repel the aggressor?” What is the hazard and who is the aggressor?
“A. Vicar” goes on – “Should it be necessary, I shall be prepared at a future date to have the evidence of my informants placed in a court of law and attested on oath.” Who is going to law, and for what? Further on comes, “Having, then, shown the sincerity of my espousal of the case by my desire to obtain the truth ---------“and, as if he had not yet reached the height of his absurdity, he says “Should he (A.H. Colles) still disdain (prave ‘ords) to move in the manner I have indicated, it will be necessary for me , however regrettable (to whom?) to take other means to attain the desired ends; and should he not reply to this letter in your next issue, as a preliminary step to those means I shall publish the private correspondence between A.H. Colles and myself.” Well, I have not disdained at my own convenience to “answer a fool according to his folly;” and the old proverb, that “A man that driveth an ass must have a strong stick,” is my excuse for so pointedly calling attention to the nonsense contained in “A. Vicar’s” letter, and to which I have not done half justice.
I must not forget that “A. Vicar” is to be proved a robber. Dr Johnson, speaking of a man who was using “tall” words, described him as one who has been to a “feast of languages and stolen the scraps.” Now Dr Johnson practically called that man a thief, but if the said man had not only stolen the language, but also the ideas of a great man, and prostituted them both, what would Dr Johnson have called him? But it does not much matter what Dr Johnson would have called him; the question is – What will the Whaley Bridge people call such a person? But that there may be no mistake as to “A. Vicar” having committed a robbery, please allow me to put in two columns what “A. Vicar” wrote in his last letter, and what Pitt spoke in reply to Walpole.
what “A. Vicar” wrote What pitt said
I am always careful in If any man shall, by charg-
controversies of any descrip- ing me with theatrical be-
tion of the language I use, haviour imply that I utter
but when a man implies any sentiment but my own,
in a meeting where he can- I shall treat him as a calum-
not be answered that I and niator and a villain; nor
others wish to damage his shall any protection shelter
character, I shall treat him him from the treatment
as a calumniator and a vil- which he deserves. I shall
lain, nor shall any protec- on such an occasion, with-
tion shelter him from the out scruple, trample upon
treatment which he de- all these forms, with which
serves. I shall on such an wealth and dignity entrench
occasion without scruple themselves; nor shall any-
trample upon all those thing but age restrain my
forms with which wealth resentment – age which al-
and dignity entrench them- ways brings one privilege –
selves, nor shall anything that of being insolent and
but age restrain my resent- supercilious without punish-
ment; age which always ment. I will not sit uncon-
brings with it one privi- cerned while my liberty
lege, that of being insolent invaded, nor look in silence
and supercilious without upon public robbery. I will
punishment. I will not sit exert my endeavours at
unconcerned while my whatever hazard to repel
liberty is invaded, nor the aggressor, and drag the
look in silence on public thief to justice, what power
calumny. I will exert my soever may protect the vil-
endeavours at whatever lainy, and whoever may par-
hazard to repel the aggres- take of the plunder. --- See
sor, and wring from him a “Lewis’s Penny Readings,”
full and complete apology. Page 17.
Just fancy even a schoolboy attempting to pass off the words of Pitt as his own, and trying to apply them to a case to which they are not applicable – it must have been Pitt’s strong language that tempted him. Will “A. Vicar” blush when he sees the above or not? I cannot tell, not knowing him; but if he does not, why then any further writing would be wasted on him.
Please notice that “A. Vicar” would pose as a philanthropist who has a mission. Let him remember the fable of the frog and the ox, and the untimely fate of the frog.
I would also advise “A. Vicar” not to copy that prince of would-be philanthropists, Don Quixote, or he may find he is attacking a windmill now and then, and share Don Quixote’s discomfiture.
I don’t for a moment think this letter will have any effect on “A. Vicar,” nor do I for a moment think he won’t reply, and no doubt “villain, “suckling sycophants,” &c., &c., will be mild language to what will appear in the next, and I shall look forward to it with considerable interest, for I know that young blood as a rule does not weigh its words.
“A. Vicar” writes, “I am always careful in controversies of any description of the language I use.” You have had specimens of the guarded language he uses towards a humble individual like myself who has only done what I believe every decent person in Whaley Bridge will give me credit for, i.e., sticking up for a friend, who was disgracefully attacked. (Ah, so they were friends then)
If “A. Vicar” gets up a public meeting, we shall then know who “we of the middle and upper class” are, and as, of course, his friends will be there, we shall be able to identify “Observer,” “Verax,” and Company, (I don’t have copies of these articles) and perhaps have a word to say to them. But who would condescend to notice the comments of one who dare write on a case wherein a gentleman’s name is publicly mentioned and attempted to be damaged, and yet dare not sign his own. I venture to quote that such a man “is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils; let no such man be trusted.”
I hope, Mr. Editor, you will not consider I have infringed the rules that may be called Parliamentary. If the word “robber” is rather strong, though the stolen goods are before your eyes, I will retract it and say “A. Vicar” merely “appropriates” without leave or acknowledgment.
Yours &c,
A.H. Colles
1, Belmont, Higher Broughton, Manchester,
April 17th 1888.
Another Letter by A. Vicar, 24th April 1888
The sudden death of a woman at Whaley Bridge
To the Editor
Sir,
It appears that my letter of the 7th inst. has been the means of “drawing the badger,” though he has taken a fortnight to prepare his epistle, and I must congratulate A.H. Colles” upon the ingenious manner in which he has distorted the composition of it, but would wish to remind him that ridicule is not argument, and that his attempt to make farce out of a tragedy does not reflect much credit upon him.
He has carefully avoided any reference to the case under discussion, but has evidently thought that he might be able to divert attention from it by a composition which will entitle him to be recognised as a second “master of flouts and gibes and sneers.”
With reference to his apology for using philanthropist in connection with my name there is no necessity for it, as I repudiate the definition which is generally understood of the word, for in my opinion charity, which is synonymous with philanthropy in the eyes of many people’ is twice cursed; it curseth him that gives and him that takes.
As for my plagiarism from Pitt, according to a rough copy of my Mss, which I have by me, the paragraph commences as follows: “But for fear of using stronger language, I will apply, with a little alteration, Pitt’s reply to Walpole for the defence,” &c.
With regard to the query, “Who is going to the law, and what for?” that is a question which I think “A.H. Colles” knows more about than I do, seeing that some of his friends went to a solicitor in Stockport for advice.
He states that he has “not disdained to answer a fool according to his folly;” but in the opinion of some persons “all wise men are fools,” so in that case I take it that he means to compliment me on my wisdom, though I would remind him of a passage in the Bible, which book I hope he believes in, “whosoever shall say thou fool shall be in danger of hell fire.”
“A.H. Colles” has no need to be afraid that calling me a boy will vex me, but as for getting up a meeting on the subject, it lies with Dr Allan and company to do that to clear themselves from blame.
It will be my pleasure to address a meeting in Whaley Bridge before another month is gone, although on an entirely different subject, but seeing that I do not know “Observer,” “Verax,” and company, I cannot invite them privately to attend. Owing to the remarks in “A.H. Colles” letter, I will divert from my original intention and speak on this subject for about ten or fifteen minutes, and I give a cordial invitation to “A.H. Colles,” “C.E. Johnstone,” “Dr Allan,” “Verax,” “N,” “Observer,” and last, but not least, “Mr. J.Butterworth,” of Throstledale , who did sign his name, and whose letter “A.H. Colles” has not had the manliness to reply to, to attend the meeting, and refute or uphold my statements.
My reason for publishing the private correspondence was to show that my opponents were anxious to stop the controversy by secret means, if possible, and my contention is that the content of those letters justifies the course I have taken, and the language I have used.
Yours &c.,
Archibald Vicar
24th April 1888.
A Letter from Joseph Butterworth, 25th April 1888
To the Editor
Sir,
This matter evidently affords Mr. Colles much fun and amusement. I was not surprised to find that in his letter of last week he carefully avoided some of the statements he had previously made and which I contradicted in my first letter. Nor was I unprepared for the flippant and frivolous tone of his letter, because, as I had said, I did not believe that he took any interest in poor Jodrell’s case except so far as to advertise his “friend” Dr Allan. I was, however, a little surprised to find that after he had once made his appearance in public and made important statements and contradictions he should make an attempt to shelve the whole thing and smother the questions by requesting (privately) what I take to be nothing more or less than a testimonial as to character and previous good conduct, and I think that Mr. Vicar must have been surprised when he received those pleading communications. The case may be treated as a farce by Mr. Colles, but it is a very serious matter for the people of Whaley Bridge, for in cases of emergency one cannot be satisfied to have to send three of four miles for a doctor.
I joined this correspondence thinking that some good might come of it, but seeing that this is not likely and that it is fast becoming a mere contest in letter writing between Mr. Colles and Mr. A. Vicar,
I beg to withdraw from it. Before doing so I suggest that a public meeting be called, and a resolution submitted to the meeting that Mr. Egerton or Major Sidebottom, representing the district in the House of Commons, draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the case with a view to an amendment of the law.
The feeling of the meeting would at once indicate the true position of affairs, and would put an end to the unseemly correspondence now going on upon so painful a tragedy.
Thanking you, sir, for your courtesy on this occasion, and previously.
Yours &c,
Joseph E. Butterworth
Throstledale, Whaley Bridge April 25th 1888.
Final Letter by A.H.Colles, 2nd May 1888
High Peak News
5 May 1888
The sad death of a woman
To the Editor
Sir,
A. Vicar in his last letter metaphorically rubs his hands and says he has succeeded in “drawing the Badger” (that is myself.) Now, what I little know of badger-drawing is that cruel men set on dogs to worry an inoffensive animal. I can’t say who the cruel men are that set on the dog, but that A. Vicar is the dog is witnessed by his own remark, and he must be satisfied if he gets a dog’s treatment, and if I “badger” him he can’t complain.
A Vicar says: “He (A.H. Colles) has carefully avoided any reference to the case under discussion.” But to prove that A. Vicar has not one particle of respect for the truth, but makes assertions trusting people will believe him. I quote the following from my letter referred to: “The case rested more on a plain statement of it than upon any strong language; and from all that comes to my ears the great majority of the Whaley Bridge people are satisfied that nothing more is required to be said in further vindication of the subject of that letter.
A. Vicar goes further, and says philanthropy and charity are synonymous, and that they are “twice cursed.” No doubt he will try to prove it when he lectures on “Social Democracy.” From A. Vicar’s modest announcement of the lecture, I gather he is going to make some remarks anent the question that is so agitating his virtuous mind.
I think I have said in a former letter that if a meeting be called I should try to attend, but, of course, that supposes that the meeting is to be held in a respectable public room; say the Mechanics’ Institute or the Band of Hope Hall – and that there be a responsible chairman, and that we have not to sit whilst A. Vicar preaches on “Social Democracy,” or any other subject but the one by which he introduced himself to Whaley Bridge.
For fear A. Vicar should plead want of funds as an excuse for not getting a good room, I now consent to pay for the use of the room for the evening, on the conditions referred to above, and I shall consider Mr. Butterworth a most suitable chairman.
When I say that A. Vicar is not truthful I do not refer to his excuse about robbing Pitt of his words and ideas, because I can’t prove that his excuse is false, but I do convict him of untruthfulness in references to my letter.
No friends of mine that I know of have consulted a solicitor in this case, and I should have laughed at them if they had told me they were doing so. I thought it was all the other side that were talking about law.
If I – “the badger” – let off A. Vicar – “the dog” – from any more “badgering,” it is not because he had not written more foolish things than I have referred to, but simply because I believe with my friends (the suckling sycophants, as A. Vicar so pleasingly calls them) that to reason with an individual who, without any justification – and I defy anyone to prove there was justification – calls a correspondent a villain, a calumniator, &c., &c., (borrowed words, I admit, though equally as malicious as if he had put the sentences together himself,) is a waste of good ink and your valuable paper.
May I ask, why will gentlemen try to draw badgers – mind, I don’t say A. Vicar is a gentlemen – and I make this disclaimer, for if I did not he might think it necessary to say he objects to being called a gentleman, as he did to being called a philanthropist.
Why should Mr. Butterworth, I regret that it is to him I am now bound to refer, wish to “draw” me? However, he has succeeded, for after his rude and inconsiderate attack upon me, twice repeated, and without any provocation from me, I do not see how I can forbear from replying, for if I do strangers might think I was afraid to answer him, or had not a good reply.
Mr. Butterworth says he was not surprised to find I carefully avoided statements which I had previously made. I maintain that my first letter, written quite temperately and without malice, was a good and sufficient answer to the case that had been made so much of, and I do not see why Mr. Butterworth should expect me to repeat statements that have not been disproved. Mr. Butterworth, contradicting me with a simple assertion of his own, is not disproving what I have asserted. I say again no word I wrote has been disproved, and, therefore, as I have stated in a previous part of this letter, I did not avoid anything, but confirmed all I had previously written.
If I have written flippantly, as Mr. Butterworth says, of A. Vicar, it has been because of A. Vicar’s foolishness, as instanced by his use of bad language, threats, &c.
Mr. Butterworth says in his first letter I tried to make Jodrell’s evidence into a tissue of lies. What I did say was: “I should deeply grieve to say one word that should add another pang to what Jodrell must have felt at the loss of his wife, and therefore I will merely trust that what he said before the deputy-coroner he thought was true;” and surely Mr. Butterworth must see the great difference between suggesting that what a man said he had done under great excitement he might be mistaken about and alleging that what he did say was a tissue of falsehoods. If I could possibly think that Mr. Butterworth saw no difference, I should not proceed further with this letter, but I have a better opinion of that gentleman than to think it for a moment.
Mr. Butterworth says : “Nor was I unprepared for the flippant and frivolous tone of his letters, because, as I have said, I did not believe that he took any interest in poor Jodrell’s case except so far as to advertise his “friend.”
Now I could have almost believed that A. Vicar had written that sentence, because it is grossly unjustifiable. On what grounds did Mr. Butterworth believe that I took no interest in Jodrell’s case, except for the reason he specifies? With all diffidence I would say I took considerable trouble to enquire into the case, and, unless I had done so, I, living away from Whaley, could not have written the letter I did.
I am trying to treat Mr. Butterworth temperately, but would it not be a most natural weakness if when I read the following I had replied in the same spirit : “I was, however a little surprised to find that after he had once made . . . . . important statements and contradictions he should make an attempt to shelve, ‘&c., &c.,’ by requesting (privately) what I take to be nothing more or less than a testimonial?” &c., &c. ; and “I think Mr Vicar must have been surprised when he received those pleading communications?” Those that have read the “communications” will, I feel sure, wonder where the “pleading” comes in. But if I could have saved A. Vicar from exposing himself and Mr. Butterworth from taking up a position which I regret he did, I would have pleaded much harder.
Mr. Butterworth wishes for a meeting at Whaley Bridge, and that a resolution should be passed “with a view to an amendment of the law.” Without treating Mr. Butterworth’s words too lightly, might I ask him what law? If he means that he wants a law added to the statute book, how would the following resolution do?
“That this meeting desires a law may be passed compelling all doctors to attend every case to which they may be called, independent of time, hour, or distance, and irrespective of any fact that the person calling them gave them notice or not, although it might be customary for well-regulated persons to do so; and, further, that doctors shall not consider whether they can do any good or not, or take into consideration that they know all the good they can do will be to sign a certificate, and the fact, whether taught by previous experience or not, that they will or will not be paid must not influence them in the slightest degree.” I don’t think the above is at all an unfair statement of what might be expected to be put, that is judging from the letters that have appeared. Of course a resolution that cloth agents should send shirtings to clothe the poor, the needy, and distressed of our back slums, and that lint, physic, &c., should be supplied to whomever ask for them, irrespective of the chance of the supplier being paid, would be left over to a later meeting.
Under such laws of course doctors and cloth agents would be compensated by being made to a certain extent monopolists like publicans. The idea does not recommend itself to me.
There is one other remark of Mr. Butterworth’s I feel I should be doing an injustice to the place where I lived so long, if I did not refer to.
A. Vicar merely attacked me and two or three others. But Mr. Butterworth, not satisfied with such a “small bag” as that, fires away at the whole village, for cannot the great majority of the people of Whaley be included in the words, “working classes”? He says, “I know from experience that the working classes of Whaley Bridge are the most apathetic people under the sun, and would not lift a finger in defence of their neighbour.” May I ask were they apathetic when they built their Temperance Hall, or their Wesleyan Chapel, or when they built their Mechanics’ Institute? Does the Volunteer Corps of a hundred strong indicate apathy? Is the raising of money to restore Taxal Church a sign of apathy? And if the above do not indicate apathy, where do you look for it? Amongst their youths, who in their football field have, during the past season, won 14 games and lost 3.
I have only referred to public apathy, for I dare hardly mention the libel that they as individuals “would not lift a finger in defence of their neighbour” for fear after I had vented my feelings and called attention to the charge I might be told that in transcribing from the MS. a mistake had been made. I have it on good authority, the authority of those who have lived long in the village that it would be hard to find a place where more ready and hearty sympathy with one another in sickness or distress of mind or body can be found than in Whaley Bridge.
Though Mr. Butterworth in his last letter draws the mantle of retirement around him, he must excuse my having accepted what I consider to be his challenge, and having replied, Mr. Butterworth can, if he think fit, throw off his mantle, and if he consider it worth his while to reply I would ask him to read my first letter once again, and if I made therein one assertion that a gentleman might not make in such a case I shall be most willing to apologise in your paper.
In conclusion, allow me to express my regret that the correspondence took so unpleasant a turn. A. Vicar’s letters, in which he used such bad language, imputed such bad motive, and quoted other words than his own, are responsible for it.
Thanking you for allowing me so much of your space.
Yours &c.,
A.H. Colles
Higher Broughton, May 2nd 1888
[This correspondence must now cease. Ed. H.P.N.]
An Article re Socialist Meeting, High Peak News, 19th May 1888
High Peak News
19 May 1888
SOCIALIST MEETING
Amusing proceedings
For a month the Socialist meeting announced to be held in the open air by Mr Archibald Vicar, of Prestwich, was looked forward to with more interest that has ever been attached to any meeting held in Whaley Bridge.
Half-past six was the hour named for the meeting to commence, but half-an-hour before that time knots of persons, numbering from four to forty, were to be seen every few yards standing about the main street of the village. At a quarter to seven a young man came along from the direction of the London and North Western Station and made direct for the White Hart Hotel. Here he borrowed a chair, which he carried to the middle of the open space on the Derbyshire side of the bridge. A general move was made by the crowd, 600 or 700 strong, to the spot.
Inspector Gray called Mr Vicar on one side for a few moments, with, we suppose, the object of getting his name and address, and cautioning him against causing any breach of the peace. Nothing daunted, the young man mounted the chair, and began to deliver his address, the first portion of which solely related to what there has already been too much said about in Whaley Bridge.
We mean the Jodrell case. Mr Vicar was accompanied by a “friend” named William K. Hall, of Pendleton.
At ten minutes to seven, Mr Vicar stood upon the chair and was about to commence his address when some one shouted “Dust want a barber, mate?”
An outburst of laughter followed the remark. Mr Vicar, after two more essays, began by telling his large audience that he noticed in their local paper (the High Peak News) that morning that it was expected that there would be two or three bands coming there, and that two or three lots of people were going to endeavour to upset the meeting. He had also received a letter, anonymously, saying that before he went back again he would probably bear some marks of his visit to Whaley Bridge, but he did not think the people of Whaley Bridge would do anything whatever to upset the meeting. Many of them well knew the reason or cause which he took up in their local paper, and some of them would probably feel surprised that he should come there to address a meeting on social democracy. He himself was a socialist, and as a revolutionary social democrat he considered it his duty wherever he went to place his views before the people, and more particularly before the working-class portion of the community.
In their large towns it was easy enough to get audiences, but in little places, villages, it was not quite so easy a matter.
As he traveled in this district occasionally he happened to take up their local paper one day, and saw an inquest of the case with which they were acquainted. He took that case up as he had taken up other cases, and he was prepared to take that case up because he considered that the medical officer they had there failed in his duty in his attendance upon that person.
What would they think if he (the speaker) were walking by their river side to Buxton and saw one of their children in the river, and did nothing to get the child out?
That was the way they should look at this case, which was exciting interest all over England.
[A Voice: “Quite different.” Another: “You are wrong altogether”, and “Boo.”]
If he were wrong he should like [a Voice: “It has done no good at all”.]
Here they had a man who might have saved that woman’s life. They could ask him any questions after
[Voices: “Sit thee down”; “Get in th’ cart”; and laughter.] He understood that in another week or two another doctor would be established in Whaley Bridge. [A Voice: “Set up for it yourself?” and laughter.]
He was not going to deal with that case very much [A Voice: “Thou are going to have no chance if thou doesn’t mind”; “Go and have a bitter”; and laughter.]
As soon as the speaker could make himself heard he continued: Mr Colles had thrown a challenge out to him. [Uproar.] If they would wait half-a-minute he would explain to them, but he should not go on with the case [a Voice: “What is your object in taking it up”? Another: “You are robbing the barber”; and laughter, lasting some little time.]
He was not going to touch upon the case with this exception: Mr Colles had thrown a challenge out to him to hold a meeting in a respectable place in Whaley Bridge, and he would take a room for it. He was prepared to accept his challenge. [A Voice: “Thou hast cheek enough for to do it”, and laughter.]
He would leave his remarks in order for that meeting, if he (Mr Colles) would take it up, but Mr Colles seemed to ridicule him about a letter which he wrote to him (Mr Colles) privately in answer to his (Mr Colles’) first letter to him. [A Voice: “Lunatics like to get up high”] He (Mr Colles) seemed to think no one else had anyone in the House of Commons but himself. [A Voice: “Is it th’ workhouse, and laughter”.] He should be able to get a larger number of votes in the House of Commons than he (Mr Colles) would. The next few words were but indistinctly heard owing to a row made by two men at the back of the speaker, but Mr Vicar was understood to say that someone had been begged upon to write to the paper, and he had found out that Dr Allan [A Voice : “If I had been Archibald I would not have come. Have you brought Lewis’s Penny Readings with you”? And laughter.] He would leave that question for another time. [A Voice: “Who went to see the lawyer”?]
If Mr Colles was willing to take up his offer he was willing to pay for advertising the meeting if he (Mr Colles) would take a room ; but he must object to Mr Butterworth being chairman, because he had been interested in the case and should any disturbance arise then, of course, they would lay the blame on Mr Butterworth. [Voices: “A very good get-out,” “Thou has said plenty,” “Sit thee down, lad,” “What will thou have to sup?” “Is this Archibald?” And a general outburst of laughter.] Socialists were looked upon as thieves, vagabonds, and robbers. (Hear, hear.) The men who had assembled in Trafalgar Square time after time had been called pickpockets, but none had been arrested for stealing. [A Voice: “That is personal”.] If they were well-known thieves why were they not arrested for assembling ? Messrs Cunningham, Burns, &c --- [Voices: “Thou art coming to something sensible now,” “Thou art right now, old man.”] Whilst he declared himself a revolutionary social democrat he also declared himself to be a Christian Socialist. They opposed the Liberal party as much as they opposed the Tory party, and whilst they hated the Tories they also despised the Liberals. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
They had nothing much to expect from either party. Whilst he was over in Ireland about twelve months ago -- [A Voice: “Thou ought to have stopped there,” “Hear, hear,” “That’s a good ‘un”] – he was watched by detectives from Dublin, and, upon his return to Manchester, simply because he wrote two letters to the Manchester Guardian, he was then told his services were not required any longer, and that he was medically unfit for duty. After that he had spoken in Manchester, last September, and was arrested for speaking at New Cross. (Hear, Hear.) He remembered being thrown through the window of a Liberal Club for moving a resolution in favour of Home Rule for Ireland. {A Voice: “Never show a white feather for being thrown through a window for a good thing”, and applause.]
At this point the Salvation Army band came on the spot and began to play, drowning the remarks of the speaker. Several voices cried “Go on Archibald.” At their meeting in Bolton they had, Mr Vicar continued, Blue Ribbon and other armies very often came up immediately there was a crowd and endeavoured to get collections from their people. He had nothing to say personally against the Salvation Army or the Blue Ribbon Army, because in the Blue Ribbon Army they had got three or four of the best speakers they had in their ranks. Why the Salvation Army should come and try to disturb the meeting he did not know. He did not understand such tactics; anyhow it was not the way to go about business. [A Voice: “Never mind the Salvation Army; give us something interesting”.] Those who were farmers knew what a state the labour market was in; people had to come to them seeking employment, The Tory party were suggesting a return to Protection, and the Radical party said it was foreign competition that we were suffering from, and that the foreign workmen worked longer hours and for less pay, and consequently produced goods cheaper than we could. Then there was the sweating system. [A Voice: “Archie, thou art making a higher standard of it now. He has got on to politics now”.]
For a few minutes some attention was paid to the squabble going on between the two parties who, in the early part of the meeting, shook fists in each other’s faces. At last the fellow who commenced the row was struck in the mouth by the other one, and he rolled over. For the ensuing fifteen minutes the speaker was uninterrupted except by a laugh now and then. He concluded by saying he had some Socialist catechisms which they could have at one penny each.
Mr Hall, a collier, then mounted a chair and commenced an address. M Vicar, complacently smoking a cigar at his back. Mr Hall was asked "Who was his chairman?" And, as he did not answer the question, someone shouted out, “Go on matie.” The row between the two men at the back continued during the whole of the time he was speaking. Mr Hall enlightened his listeners as to what professionally he would choose of he had the chance, and that was, he said, the medical profession. He did study for it. (A laugh.) The agricultural labourer produced the food which the teeth had to deal with, and the doctor extracted the teeth. (“Wonderful!”)
Mr Vicar announced that he should come again in a month from that day. As soon as he had made that known a rush was made to the station to catch the 8 o’clock train. Mr Vicar was in time, and Mr Hall was not. A crowd got round him, and asked innumerable questions, which he attempted to answer. For an hour the crowd lingered about the White Hart Inn discussing the “lecture” and the Jodrell case.
Except the squabble that took place at the back of the speaker’s chair the proceedings passed off good naturedly, and, it may be added, served one purpose only: the finding of an evening’s amusement for the villagers.
An Article re Socialist Meeting, Ashton Reporter, 19th May 1888
Ashton Reporter
19 May 1888
A nice way of puffing a meeting.
For several days prior to Saturday a good deal of interest had been excited by reason of an announcement that a meeting was to be held near the White Hart, and to be addressed by Archibald Vicar.
Some weeks ago an inquest was held at Whaley Bridge concerning the death of a woman named Jodrell. A correspondence was started in the local papers, and one of the persons taking part in it dated from Prestwich, and signed himself Archibald Vicar. For a time it was thought that the name was fictitious, but this idea was dispelled by Vicar himself turning up and expressing his intention of addressing a public meeting on behalf of the Social Democratic Foundation.
Many persons believed that enough had been said as to Dr Allan’s connection with the case, and it was broadly affirmed that Vicar would receive a warm reception. The police had, of course, heard of the matter, and it was feared that a riot might take place. The meeting was announced for 6.30, and as no one arrived by the train immediately before that time answering to the description of Archy, it was believed that the whole affair was about to end in smoke. A few minutes, however, before the time, a young man with rather long locks, and carrying a paper parcel under his arm, turned into the lobby of the White Hart and asked for the loan of a chair. By this time a large crowd had gathered at Bridge End, and as the chair was carried to a convenient spot, the people good-humouredly gathered near.
The chair having been placed in position, Inspector Gray, of Chapel-en-le-Frith, went up to Vicar and drew him aside, and the next moment Vicar was engaged in writing something on a slip of paper, which he handed to the officer – presumably his address.
Vicar then mounted the chair, and said that he had seen from a local paper that two bands were to be engaged to upset the meeting, but he felt sure that nothing of the sort would take place. Most present would be aware of the reason why he was there. He saw a report of an inquest in the newspapers, and as he came up to Whaley Bridge occasionally, he took an interest in it. (Uproar.)
He would ask them what they would think of him, if whilst walking along their river, and he saw a child drowning if he made no effort to save its life? -- A voice: “That is quite different. Another, “Thoust going to come down.” He understood, however, that there was going to be another doctor come to the place. – A voice “He’ll be of no use if he comes. Another person called out “You cannot get any further.”
The speaker said Mr Colles had thrown out a challenge, and he was prepared to accept it, if he would secure a room. -- A voice: “Thou has cheek enough” and to pay his share of the cost, but at the same time he must object to Mr Butterworth being chairman, because he would be blamed for the meeting. (A voice: “We have some good doctors here already.”) The speaker than left the subject of the local case and was attentively listened to.
Mr Wiliam K. Hall, of Pendleton, also addressed the meeting upon the advantages of socialism.
Mr Vicar said another meeting would shortly be held, and an attempt made to establish a branch of the federation at Whaley Bridge. There were many branches in various parts of the country, but as yet there were none in Derbyshire, so that the Whaley Bridge people would have the opportunity of being the first to join the organisation.
An Article re Socialist Meeting, Glossopdale Chronicle, 19th May 1888
Glossopdale Chronicle.
19 May 1888
Socialist speechifying.
On Saturday evening last addresses were delivered in the space opposite the White Hart, on the questions of the day, by Mr Archibald Vickers, of the Salford Socialist Democratic Federation, and Mr Hall of the Pendleton Socialist Federation.
Notice of the meeting had been given by small handbills, and was timed to commence at 6.30 p.m., but it was quarter to seven before the speakers appeared, and by that time a good audience had gathered.
Mr Vickers opened the proceedings by commencing to speak in a disparaging tone about Dr Allen re Jodrell’s business, but he had made very little progress when he was interrupted by hooting, shouting, and was told to get on his “democrating,” that they wanted no one to come there talking about Dr Allen, that they knew more about the people concerned than he did, and they could tell him things he knew nothing of, and cries were raised “Pull him off th’chair if he’ll none get on ‘democrating.” He therefore ceased speaking on the subject, and went on with the usual stock remarks of such like agitators, about the iniquity of the land laws, of the manufacturers grinding the faces of the workmen,
and taking all the profit which they had not earned &c., &c
After Mr Hall had addressed the meeting, it was stated that questions might be asked, but no advantage was taken of the offer. The proceedings passed off quietly, but that was owing to the presence of the police, for it is stated that rotten eggs and other missiles of a like nature were in readiness, to be used had there been a chance.
Buxton Advertiser
23 Feb 1889
St. John's ambulance society.
The local branch of this society (Manchester centre), which was established on November 10th last, has made rapid progress. The members 25 in number have been instructed by Dr Allan at the Mechanics' Institute on successive Saturday nights, the course of instruction being limited to five lectures.
Last Saturday the members met at the Mechanics' Institute when Dr Allan presented the certificates in the order following: Messrs John Andrew, James Arnfield, John Henry Arnfield, John Ashton, John Ault, G. Bennett, Elijah G. Bridge, George Burdekin, John Bradley, John Collinson, Henry Drinkwater, Richard Goddard, Levi J. Hall, Elijah Hall, Thomas Hadfield, Peter Hill, Martin Hunt (Police-constable), Joseph Kirk, ditto., Oswald Kirk, Edward E. Stamper, John Ward, Geo. Wood, Albert Williamson, and Edward Taylor.
After the certificates had been presented, Mr Ault, on behalf of the newly-formed class, presented Dr Allan with a handsome aneroid barometer, by Armstrong. He said how much they were indebted to the doctor for his kindness in giving his services free of all cost, and remarked that the members of the class had most cheerfully subscribed towards the purchase of the barometer, which they hoped would be of use to him, and serve as a mark of their appreciation of his services. Dr Allan, in response, thanked the members for their good feeling, and expressed a hope that they would be of benefit to those who might meet with accidents.
Any praise they had to bestow, however, was really more due to Mr Levi Holt, of the Wharf Colliery, who had been instrumental in getting the class formed.
A vote of thanks was passed in the most cordial manner to Mr Hall for his services, and also to the trustees of the Mechanics' Institute, for kindly lending the building for the holding of classes free of cost.
A cordial vote of thanks was also accorded Mr Stamper for his valued services a secretary. Afterwards the members sat down to an excellent knife and fork tea, at Mr Wm Lees' (Railway Hotel.) Mr John Ault presided, and brief speeches were made, the remainder of the evening being agreeably whiled away with songs by Messrs George Bennett, John Ward, H. Stamper, and friends. Recitations were given by Messrs Thomas Hadfield and James Arnfield.
Dr. Hector Allan
An invoice / receipt
His dog
His house on Reservoir Road
High Peak News
30 June 1906
The death occurred on Monday rather suddenly of Dr Hector Allan, who acted in the capacity of hon. surgeon-captain to the Volunteer Company. He had held that post for the greater part of the time that the company had been established.
He was also Medical Officer of Health to the Urban District Council, and public vaccinator for the district.
He was a man of jovial manner, and was well known in the locality.
He married Miss Heafield, of Taxal, but of later years Mrs. and Miss Heafield and her two sons resided at Chapel-en-le-Frith.
The deceased leaves a widow and one son.
The latter was during his earlier years educated at Buxton, and has been for the past few years studying for the medical profession.
Dr Allan was a Liberal in politics and a Scotchman by birth.
He will be very much missed in Whaley Bridge.
High Peak News
2 November 1907
Dr F.G. Allan has been appointed by the Macclesfield authority medical officer and public vaccinator for the Whaley Bridge district.