Alexander GREIG
(1853-1917)
(1853-1917)
Grave No: 24;
Estimated Year of Birth: 1853;
Date of Death: 28th December 1917;
Age: 64 years;
Latitude: 53.72086;
Longitude: -0.84954;
what3words: cloak.leaky.heats;
Condition: Sound & in situ;
Length (mm): 2350 mm;
Width (mm): 1065 mm;
Thickness (mm): 235 mm.
In loving Memory of /
WILLIAM GREIG /
DIED IN MESOPOTAMIA /
MAY 24th 1916 AGED 32 YEARS /
ALEXANDER GREIG /
DIED DECr. 28th 1917, /
AGED 64 YEARS. /
HANNAH HIS WIFE /
DIED DECr. 18th 1928, /
AGED 73 YEARS.
Rabies killed about 100 people a year in Victorian England, but the fear of rabies, and regular public health panics about mad dogs, were much more widespread. Working class dog owners were particular targets for the authorities.
I found the following article online with the background.
“In 1889 Parliament gave the Board of Agriculture the authority to impose the Rabies Order wherever they thought necessary. Lancashire, Cheshire and the West Riding of Yorkshire were particularly targeted. Dogs used for upper-class pursuits of hunting and game retrieval were exempted – the price demanded by M.P.s for passing the legislation. The granting of this privilege to the social elite merely fuelled the resentment of the general dog-owning population. Any dog that barked at strangers, or was too lively, was immediately under suspicion, as was any frightened dog who adopted aggressive behaviour as a form of defence. Thousands of dogs were slaughtered across the country as a result “.
The residents of Goole, an international port, might well have been gripped by one of these panics, as is reported in our beloved organ the Hull Daily Mail, on 8 January 1896. The defendant is Alexander Greig, subsequently buried in Hook in 1917, but very much alive here. He’s also the father of another of our lives, Catherine Tyzack….
"NEVER IN HIS LIFE
SCENE AT GOOLE POLICE COURT
SPECIAL TELEGRAM FROM OUR REPORTER
Quite a scene took place at the Goole Police-court this afternoon. A chemist named Alexander Greig, who was summoned for an unmuzzled dog, refused to enter the dock. Superintendent Harrison: You will go if a policeman puts you in. - Defendant: I was never there in my life, Defendant still refused to move, but despite his resistance Inspector Humphries and a constable forcibly placed him in the dock. The case was proved, and defendant fined 10 shillings."
This story also runs in the Middlesbrough Daily Gazette 9 Jan 1896.
Curiously, HDM runs an almost identical story on Thursday 9 Oct 1896 thus:
“There were only 3 cases down for hearing at the police court yesterday, and for once the magistrate dealt with them most expeditiously.
…
“It is not often that defendants refuse to enter the dock, and with such persistence, as did Alexander Grieg, a chemist, at the Police Court yesterday. “This gentleman was summoned under the muzzling order , and when his case was called he promptly told the magistrates and the police that he was “not going in there “ pointing to the dock.
“Mr Taylor remarked that that was the proper place, in fact he said he had occupied it himself under a similar summons.
“But Mr Grieg was not having any, and he refused to be persuaded, consequently he was elevated to that position by the Inspector and a constable.
…
“I [i.e. the reporter] understand that the dock is divided into two compartments by a partition, one being for prisoners, and the other for defendants, but to the outside public it seems as one.
…
“The number of cases dealt with under the Diseases of animals Act during 1895 was 210. This number is largely due to the muzzling order and can scarcely be taken as a criterion. “
In this report, there is no mention of a fine. It’s rather amusing to think of the magistrate himself confessing to having been in the dock for the same offence. But is this Alexander’s second offence, or the same one rehashed by the reporter on a quiet day to get paid more ?
In any case, it’s a wonderful scene. (J.I.)