How to help the unemployed in March 1922

[Reproduced from my 'Way Back Then' contribution to the Leamington FC programme]

In March 1922 it was reported that ‘an ambitious scheme for the adaptation of Welch’s Meadow as a park and recreation ground is being contemplated by Leamington Town Council.  Alderman W. Davis has offered a sum of money, running into four figures, as a practical contribution to the schemes in which he is a prime mover.  If the project matures, it will mean that ornamental and pleasure grounds will extend from the west to east boundaries of the borough with attractive open spaces as the “lungs” of the town.   

One of the designs is to provide a nice walk for the residents of the Spa, this to run along the river side and to wend its way into Radford Road.  The river would also be widened, thus opening up a sheet of water admirably suited for carnivals and regattas.  The park would cover an area of from 24 to 25 acres, a site large enough to accommodate an agricultural show, and to allow of cricket and football pitches, together with tennis courts.’

Outdoor relief

The comparative cost of ‘outdoor relief’ in Leamington, Kenilworth and Warwick preoccupied the Board of Guardians at a long and acrimonious meeting.    Captain Percy told the Board that they were in arrears which could imply a considerable addition to the poor rate.   At present the rate was 11d in the pound [of rateable value] and ratepayers had considerable difficulty in meeting the demands.  In the last week for which figures were available £136 was spent on this in Leamington, in Warwick it was £13 and in Kenilworth £3.   This implied an annual figure of £7,124 for Leamington (£431,000 in today’s prices), £700 for Warwick (£42k) and for Kenilworth only £170 (just over £10k).

A range of views were expressed by the members.  Mr Gardiner said ‘Look at the difference in numbers. In Leamington there are 700 unemployed, and in Warwick there are only 400.   These people are unemployed through no fault of their own, and until we in Leamington can find them employment near home, there will always be unemployment.    The Reverend Broadway took a less generous view: ‘It looks as if something very extraordinary is happening in the amount given.   Something is wrong somewhere.  I have heard that cases are being dealt with very generously in Leamington.’ 

Mr Duffield took a contrary view: ‘If there are 400 people unemployed in Warwick and 700 in Leamington, surely we in Warwick are not treating our unemployed in a proper manner.  I consider that the relief in Warwick is inadequate.   It does not seem a case of decreasing the relief in Leamington, but increasing it in Warwick.’  It was suggested that a committee be formed to look into the matter, but Mr Canning pointed out that this would make no difference.  ‘”I take this as an attack on the Leamington Committee”, he declared, “and we at Leamington are doing our duty”’.

The supply of free bread

The committee then fell out over the question of supplying bread.   ‘The Leamington Out-relief Committee recommended that no tenders should be invited for the supply of bread and that bakers should be treated the same way as grocers and provision dealers.   Mr Albert England said that under the present system of contract, some of the people receiving bread in out-relief had to walk a considerable distance to the shop of the contracting baker.’  

Alderman Baker spoke about the virtues of competition and said that its absence might lead bakers to increase their prices.  Challenged by Mr Ballinger, Alderman Davis accused him of abusing his position as a businessman. An eventual compromise was that there should be no tenders for six months.

 

Referees called for early form of VAR in 1922

I have been unable to get to the Your Co-op Community Stadium for several weeks because of a minor but persistent problem that has impaired my mobility, although I am now on the road to recovery.

In the meantime, I am reproducing my contribution to yesterday's programme:

As I have noted in earlier articles, tensions between football crowds and referees were on the increase in 1922.  In the Leamington area the police had to be called on more than one occasion to evict spectators who had abused the referee.  It was also claimed that crowds had started chants which questioned the capacity of the referee to officiate.   

The Football Association was so concerned that they launched an overall review, but as a first step they decided to ban referees who wore glasses, following a number of complaints about the poor eyesight of some officials.   This caused some confusion at the meeting of the Birmingham FA. Should all referees who had been seen wearing spectacles be struck off the list?  It was eventually decided that it should only apply to new officials.

Writing in one newspaper, referee ‘Solo Whistle’ argued that some sort of X-ray machine might help to resolve disputes on the field of play, clearly anticipating VAR.    What was needed was some scientific means of determining what was intentional and what was accidental.  

Among the incidents where an authoritative decision was needed was ‘when a ball goes to hand, when a player kicks an opponent in playing the ball, and when a player goes down apparently injured, or may be only pretending to be hurt so as to give his side an advantage by temporarily stopping the game.  There is a wide margin of contrast in the attitude of different officials in cases of injury, or supposed injury.  One spectator writes describing an incident in which two opponents went for the ball together, one clearing the ball, and, as he drew his foot back, accidentally kicking the other man in the wind [sic], placing him hors de combat.   The referee’s attention was called, but he ordered play to proceed.  The ball went out of play, whereupon he called the trainer and had the player carried off.  

  I am reminded of another case in which a referee ordered play to proceed to the extent of the ball being worked up and down the field, passing the prostate body of the injured man three times before he called a halt after the ball passed over the line.’   Solo Whistle’s conclusion was that ‘Accidents are inseparable from the game of football, and are all in the game.’

In some cases referees were attacked by spectators.   At a game in Scotland between Tullibody and Tulliallan football clubs ‘the referee had an exciting experience.  Attacked by a spectator at the interval, he collapsed in the second half at the game and had to be carried off the field.’   The spectator appeared at Alloa Sheriff Court.  ‘It appeared that he was a supporter of the Tulliallan club, and was evidently dissatisfied with the ruling of the referee.   When the interval came he took the referee by surprise, butted him with his head, broke his artificial teeth and lacerated his mouth.’  It is no surprise that when the referee tried to carry on he collapsed.   The Sheriff told the defendant that he lacked a sporting instinct and fined him £5 or 30 days in prison.   This is £300 in today’s prices, beyond the pocket of a labourer.

The big game in Herefordshire in March 1922 was between Bromyard Town and Hereford Thistle, founded in 1885 and described as a ‘crack Hereford team’.   There was a large crowd which it was hoped would boost Bromyard’s ‘Shilling Fund’.   The home team played uphill in the first half and went 1-0 behind, the Hereford team winning 2-1