I first heard of the
following account from the
excellent book "The
Village of Ecclesfield" by
David Hey - a must read for
anyone interested in the history
of the village, and its people.
So strongly did it remind me of
the "Skimmity Ride"
from Thomas Hardy's "The
Mayor of Casterbridge",
first published 1886, that I
began to wonder if he hadn't
modelled his story on
Ecclesfield.
Sheffield
& Rotherham Independent, 29
June 1850
Wm. Woolhouse, John
Hemingfield, Jonathan Woolhouse,
Thomas Ridge, Wm. Greaves, Samuel
Siddall, Nathaniel Chandler,
George Milner, Jas. Crossland,
Wm. Hill, and Samuel Beard, were
charged by Mr. Shaw, constable,
with a riotous assembling and
disturbing the public peace, at
Ecclesfield, on the 19th Jne, by
exhibiting certain effigies,
etc., to the inhabitants. It was
proved by Shaw, that on the 19th
instant, he was sent for to
Stocks Hill, and there found a
crowd of persons to the number of
300, who were shouting and making
a great noise. Woolhouse carried
on his shoulders the effigy of a
man, and Ridge that of a woman.
They enacted most disgusting and
indecent scenes between the
effigies, while others chanted
some obscene verses. He requested
them to disperse and give up the
effigies. They complied with his
request, with this difference,
that they threw the effigies at
him instead of a peacable
surrender. Shortly afterwards
they repeated the offence
bringing forward other effigies,
which they burned in the street.
The disturbance was continued
until after eleven at night, and
similar scenes were enacted on
the following nights.
In cross-examination Mr. Branson
elicited that the proceedings
were called by those who took
part in them, "Riding the
Stang", that the effigy of
the woman was intended to
represent the landlady of a
public-house who had been
unfaithful to her husband, and
that of the man to represent her
paramour, a joiner by trade, who
had equally violated the marriage
vow. Mr. Branson, for the
defence, produced a memorial,
signed by upwards of 100 of the
inhabitants of Ecclesfield,
setting forth that they were not
terrified or annoyed by the
proceedings, but rather were glad
that the inhabitants had the
moral principle and courage to
shew their disopprobation and
abhorence, and prevent a
recurrence of the disgraceful
conduct of the parties
represented by the effigies, who
it was alleged had been living in
violation of the laws of both God
and man. The husband of the woman
having satisfied himself of the
infidelity of his wife, charged
her with it in the presence of
her paramour, who was also a
married man. The injured husband
was set upon by both the parties
and beaten until his cries
brought some of the neighbours to
his assistance, and led to the
exposure which resulted in the
holding of the offenders upto
public opprobrium. He contended
that there was no proof that
terror had been caused to the
inhabitants; but on the contrary,
it was shewn by the memorial he
had presented, that what had been
done was commended by a great
number of the respectable
inhabitants. He commented upon
the fact that Shaw had not
brought any witnesses to support
his statement, and intimated that
in bringing the parties before
the Magistrates, he had acted
officiously and without the
sanction of the inhabitants.
Mr. Overend remarked that the
proceedings which had taken place
in Ecclesfield were so
disgraceful and notorious, that
if Shaw had not taken such steps
to bring the most active of the
parties before the bench, he (Mr.
Overend) should have taken care
to have him at once suspended
from his office. He believed that
the defendants were not aware
that the exhibition of effigies
in the manner complained of was a
breach of the peace, and should
therefore discharge them on
payment of the costs. But if
there was any repetition of the
offence, and it was proved
against any of the parties, he
should commit them to the
Sessions for trial.
