Daisy Southard the woman in "The Cage" - Jersey in 1924

  

DAISY SOUTHARD WARREN - Jersey crime and punishment in 1924.

Daisy Southard appeared before the Jersey Royal Court on 16 August 1924.

She was 35 years of age, an “Exonian” - that is born in Exeter - and the widow of Jersey man George William Warren.

Over the next few days her name and details would be published in newspapers throughout Britain and many places overseas too.

George had been serving as a private with the Devonshire Regiment but was a 35 years old railway station master and bachelor living at St Lawrence when they married on 5 April 1916 at St. Helier.

His father was George a farm labourer who had various manual jobs over the years and had raised a family with his wife Elizabeth at several addresses throughout the Island.

Daisy was born in 1889.  She was a 27 years old spinster and brush maker when she married George William the station master in 1816 but when or why she had moved to Jersey is not known.

Her father Thomas Southard was described as a railway labourer on Daisy’s marriage certificate.

Thomas had married Evangeline and there had been at least five other children in their Exeter home.

The First Devon Regiment was stationed at Fort Regent and St. Peter’s Barracks and many local men had enlisted. They were sent off to the war in 1914 initially to France but then to campaigns much further away. George was awarded the 1914 Star for his service in France and Belgium.

The Regiment did not return to Jersey but George William had been injured or otherwise made unfit for further military duties.

He was presumably sent from the war zone back to Jersey where he was considered well enough to blow a whistle and wave a flag on a station platform and to marry.

There were several children born of the marriage. These might have been William George born in 1917, Daisy Doreen in 1920 and a Jesse Maud in 1921 but there were many Warrens in Jersey, especially in and around St Helier.

Elizabeth Warren a spinster of No 1 Dorset Street had died in 1868. She left her possessions to the six children of her deceased brother John Warren and her nephew George Henry Warren.

It was probably not coincidental that Daisy Southard/Warren lived predominantly at 4 Dorset Street subsequently although she entered nearby 41 Clearview Street on the false birth registration in 1924.

George William the former station master died at the Jersey General Hospital on 5 August 1921 from heart failure but was still described as a “soldier in the Devonshire Regiment” on the certificate.

Edward Warren, an ex soldier, had died in St. Helier of “heart disease” too in 1917 and might have been related. Charles George Warren from St Lawrence also served as a private in the “Devons.”

Three children survived from Daisy and George’s five years of marriage so it was a strange decision when the widow Daisy registered the birth of her own baby daughter, born on 12 July 1924, as being his child, three years after George had died.  

This was not true of course, but nevertheless, the false information was duly entered into the Registry of births by Registrar Arthur Hamon where the infant was named as Evelyn Muriel Ellen Warren on Tuesday 29 July.

However, somebody – presumably the Registrar - blew the whistle so that Daisy duly appeared in the Jersey Royal Court on Saturday 16 August 1924 charged with making a false declaration on a birth certificate, contrary to Article 5 ( among others) of the Law on the Registration of Births, Marriages and Deaths of 1842.

This was a criminal matter and was evidently considered serious enough to present before the Island’s Royal Court rather than before a Police Court Magistrate. 

That decision to prosecute had been made by Crown Officer Mr C. E. Mallet De Carteret the “acting” Attorney-General who was also the Solicitor-General.

Daisy probably received a visit at her home “Kendum” 4 Dorset Street or 41 Clearview Street, St. Helier from Parish Centenier Cabot (a police officer) to be charged and warned to appear in court although it was the newly elected Constable Ferguson of St. Helier who appeared there for the Parish.

Bailiff Sir William Venebles Vernon was the 71 years old presiding Judge for the Saturday Royal Court and he happened also to be chairman of the Jersey Railway Company.

Sitting alongside him were Jurats Crill and Renouf.

The Solicitor-General prosecuted and Advocate Duret Aubin defended.

Aubin might have been engaged to defend in accordance with the Advocate’s oath to represent the poor and widows of Jersey – a traditional form of legal aid.

 

For Daisy this prosecution must have been a frightening development.

She had just recently given birth and her financial resources were most likely limited, especially if she was already caring for the three children from her marriage.

She had no immediate adult family of her own to support her in Jersey and that of her former husband might not have been very sympathetic to her situation.

However, since there were three legitimate children of George to be cared for it is possible that the Warren family rallied round to keep them out of the care of the Island’s children’s homes.

In the grandiose, sombre court room, the 4 feet 11 inches tall, brown haired Daisy, weighing just 104 pounds (7 stones 6 pounds), equipped only with an “imperfect” education would have presented a weak and vulnerable figure before the intimidating and elevated judicial officers in their scarlet robes.

For some reason, the trial had attracted a large number of “onlookers” into the court.

The May Assizes in the same courtroom had included a major criminal trial before the Bailiff, eight Jurats and a lay jury of 24 men which was reported in the Jersey Morning News as “An Innovation” :

“For the first time in history the whole of the evidence, Public Prosecutor’s conclusions, Counsel’s pleadings and Bailiff’s summing -up were in English which should prove a welcome precedent at future Assizes when the accused have only knowledge of English language.”

Previously the language of the courts and judicial system was French and the acoustics were dreadful so it was traditionally difficult to follow the proceedings.

It was not the only challenge that Jersey was facing to its “traditions” either.

Not only was the constitution being tested over the “Imperial contribution” question but in February the Jersey States had agreed that women could be elected as “People’s Representatives” to the Legislative Assembly “but not as life members.”

It was to be 1948 before the first woman was elected.

This trial was not “an assize” but since Daisy was English with an “imperfect education” the court might have followed the recent precedent. The court proceedings were written in French.

After the charges were recited by the Public Prosecutor, Defending Advocate Aubin entered a plea of “Guilty.”

In court H.M.’s Solicitor-General described George, the late husband  as a “Private in the Devon Regiment” rather than a station master and explained that the law called for a fine of £50 or 12 months imprisonment but asked that a fine of £2 be imposed or one month’s imprisonment “without hard labour.”

Advocate Aubin argued that the Prosecutor was compelled by law to ask for a fine and imprisonment but “was sure that if he had his choice he would not have done so.”

He continued :

“The case was a sad one. There were three legitimate children. The accused had acted in ignorance. If the Court did wish to impose imprisonment he hoped they would grant the benefit of the First Offenders Act.”

Furthermore, he explained that the father of baby Evelyn Muriel Ellen was a married man who was prepared to hand his name to the Court and that he had been abandoned by his wife 5 years ago.

He was also willing to marry Daisy “but could not do so.”

Somewhat strangely, the report in the Morning News which was published on Monday 18 August ended :

“The Court granted the conclusions asked for and the accused was accordingly sentenced.”

This simple and incomplete statement not only failed to record what the sentence actually was but also omitted any reference to the issue that turned Daisy briefly into a media celebrity….

The report of the case in the late Saturday edition of the (Jersey) Evening Post – owned and edited by the Methodist Walter Guiton - did carry an account of the court case and sentencing but it was the UK Weekly Dispatch (aka Sunday Dispatch) that really exposed the most disturbing detail on Sunday 17 August.

This account was copied in the Evening Post on Monday 18 August and was headed:

WOMAN IN IRON CAGE – Exhibited in Court After Sentence.

“Following an old-fashioned practice that smacks of the Middle Ages, a woman sentenced by the Jersey Royal Court was placed in an iron cage and subjected to the gaze of a large crowd of visitors who out of curiosity had come to watch the proceedings. In her despair the poor woman went into hysterics and had to be removed.”

This account explained that Daisy was sentenced to pay a fine of £2 and to go to gaol for one month but was then “placed in an iron cage situated in a corner of the court for all to see, until her shrieks, compelled her removal.”

Who had ordered that she should be placed in the cage was not recorded.

The newspaper had explained that:  “In England the practice of publicly exhibiting minor offenders in the stocks fell into disuse about a hundred years ago.” (Weekly Dispatch - August 17)

Jersey’s pillory had stood in the Royal Square (formerly the Market Place) just outside the Court until 1836. It had been removed then following a scandalous case when three Jewish traders – Bersham, Myers and Cohen - had been tried and sentenced for frauds with counterfeited Guernsey bank notes They were sentenced to be jailed, had their property confiscated, stood together in the pillory for an hour and were banished from the Island.

Guernsey had a cage with a pillory attached so it was probably similar in Jersey with this being sited near the market place where the public could obtain suitable vegetable missiles to throw at the unfortunates on display.

The Guernsey cage was eventually mounted on a cart so that it could be stored and brought out as needed.

In London, It was not at all unusual for those pilloried to be killed by the violent actions of the mob until that facility was scrapped in 1816.

The Guernsey cage had metal rings attached which were used to restrain those sentenced to be whipped or mutilated in public. It was still used during the 1830s.

The Jersey cage was originally sited in the market-place and used to hold prisoners for trial in the adjacent court having been marched in from detention at Gorey Castle.

After a town prison was built in 1693 at Charing Cross those awaiting trial were kept detained there and the cage was removed from the market place in 1698.

It seems that a “cage” was then installed in the Royal Court to contain criminal prisoners during and after their trials. The pillory continued in use and was sited just outside the court in the Royal Square (Market Place) and under the constant gaze - after 1751 - of George ll’s gilded statue.

The Charing Cross prison was demolished in 1812 to be replaced by a newly built structure adjacent to the General Hospital in Newgate Street.

It was only after the campaigning of Elizabeth Fry the Quaker prison reformer that this unsatisfactory prison was in turn demolished and replaced in 1837 in a similar location with a “House of Correction.”

This was finally demolished and a new prison built at La Moye, St Brelade in 1975.

This prison too has been subject to several critical reports by the UK Prison Inspectorate and a UN Committee concerned with “torture or inhuman and degrading treatment” causing further improvements and extensions to be provided.

Appended to the Evening Post report was a letter from C.T. Maine of 35 King Street, St. Helier also dated 18 August.

Charles Maine was a silversmith, jeweller and clock maker whose premises were situated in the main retail street of St. Helier a just a few hundred yards from the Royal Court building.

It was possible that he was among the “large crowd of visitors” who had gone to watch the proceedings and it was also possible that he had contacted the Dispatch newspaper in London to express his disgust at the whole business.

A large number of UK newspaper reporters had been invited to Jersey in 1924 to hear the Channel Islands’ arguments against making a financial contribution to British defence expenditure and debts following the First World War. This had become known throughout the Empire as the “Imperial Contribution” question and raised important constitutional issues but had a special interest in the Channel Islands where many wealthy British had settled or contrived, to avoid paying UK taxes. Winston Churchill, appointed as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1924, promised to curtail such tax dodging.

The case of Lady Lucy Houston and her late shipping magnate husband’s fortune of £7 million was one that came before the Bailiff and the Jersey courts over several years. It was widely reported outside the Island too not only because the UK tax authorities wanted a share but the Jersey court had its eyes on a £150,000 package of jewels which had arrived concealed in a fruit basket from Southampton and was held in care by a St. Helier Jeweller.

No Income tax was collected in Jersey until the law was introduced in 1928.

The Bailiff of Jersey was of course prominent in defending the Jersey point of view and he served as Chief Judge and the “principal citizen” for 32 years from 1899.

The Islanders he said “were proud of their autonomy” and “England had always helped the independence of the Island…and Jersey was always loyal to the throne.”

We are he said a “loyal and prosperous community “ but “we say no to a contribution in our spirit of independence” and “ there can be no taxation without representation.”

Or, it might have been that the Dispatch reporter was still in Jersey when Daisy went to trial.

Charles Maine’s letter to “The Editor of the Evening Post” revealed some specific observations about Daisy’s treatment besides knowledge of Royal Court procedures that suggest he had been observing these for some time and had reformist thoughts in his mind.

He wrote that Daisy “had sobbed bitterly when removed to the cage in the Court” and he congratulated the Editor for “having called the public attention to the continuance of this barbarous treatment and venture to suggest the petitioning of our authorities to discontinue this exposure.”

He continued:

“Let a room be arranged for the placing of prisoners before or after their trial and not an iron cage. How many instances are there where prisoners have been so exposed before trial, proven not guilty and yet they experienced this cruel exposure. An equal sympathy should certainly be also shown the guilty. Sad enough it is for prisoners to remain in the centre of the Court during trial without undergoing treatment as you describe on Saturday last.”

That this was evidently already a matter of public concern followed :

“Months ago this very question was raised at a meeting of the Rotarians who unanimously agreed to write our authorities asking were it not possible to  make other arrangements for prisoners by giving them accommodation whereby they would not be put in a cage.”

“How frequently there are two prisoners waiting trial the same day : the one is removed to the centre of the Court for trial : the other remains in the iron grill, possibly for hours, and the whole while gazed at by the folks attending Court.”

He concluded:

“I do sincerely hope that steps will be taken to discontinue this barbarous treatment.”

 C.T. MAINE.

At the end of the Court’s proceedings on 18 August, Daisy was duly escorted - probably in a van -   the half mile or so to the Newgate Street prison which retained a treadmill (for grinding peppercorns), picking oakum (from old ropes and fabrics) and stone breaking as the usual employment for the inmates.

The prison usually accommodated about 100 convicts or debtors and included a female wing for about a dozen more.

Here she was measured and weighed and her details entered into the admissions ledger as number 8987.

She was 32 years old, the widow of George W. Warren, a brush maker with no particular marks but her hair was dark brown and her religion was “Church of England.”

Somebody assessed her education as “imperfect” and she had no previous convictions.

If her baby and three other children had not been taken-in by members of the Warren family or other friends they would have been removed to various homes around Jersey.

William the 7 year old boy was probably sent to the “Home for Boys” facility at St. Martin’s whilst his sisters were probably admitted to the Grouville “Girls Home.” There would have been little opportunity to visit or communicate with each other.

Daisy as a nursing mother, separated from her baby and other children and confined to the grim prison would have had to adapt to a strict regime. Yet her weight had increased by 4 pounds (to 108 pounds) when she was released on 16 September.

Why she made the false registration declaration is not clear. It is probable that this was from ignorance as her defence lawyer claimed in court and she was simply following the previous procedure without thinking too much that her husband was three years dead.

Her “imperfect” education was most likely relevant too but there might have been some financial inducement such as Parish Poor Law relief or an Army pension increase payable to an extra legitimate child.

Reports of the case and the scandalous use of the “medieval” and “barbaric” cage soon appeared in newspapers around the British Isles and overseas too.

Daisy Southard was briefly famous.

The cage was a “strange Jersey Custom” in the Gloucestershire Gazette.

It was “old fashioned justice” in the Dunbar Courier.

A “practice that smacks of the Middle Ages” in the Larne Times.

“Jersey’s barbarism” according to the Hull Daily Mail.

“Back to barbarity” in the Lincolnshire Echo whilst the Nottingham Evening Post noted the “vigorous protests from Jersey it is hoped will end the medieval practice.”

It was not the sort of publicity that Jersey welcomed.

Daisy was soon returned to her home, family and presumably, her brush making work.

Her moment of celebrity had passed but not her ability to produce babies.

Whether the same married lover was attending at “Kendum” 4 Dorset Street is not known but baby Joseph Alexander Southard joined his “sister” there in June 1926 and baby Irene Maud Southard was also squeezed into the little cottage in October 1928.

These babies were both registered by Daisy alone with no father being identified so she might have been looking after a family of six children when Christmas descended on St Helier in 1928.

In November of that same year Daisy’s little sister from Exeter - Mabel Amelia Southard – married Philip Misson Egan in St. Helier.

He was a 23 years old bachelor and labourer.  Spinster Mabel was just 15.

Daisy was a witness at the wedding which was unusual insofar as the newlyweds had brought their own new born son Philip Henry along too “in order to give him the sight of legitimacy.”

The fact that he was “presented at this marriage” was duly entered into the Register.

Whether it had been intended that young sister Mabel moved to Jersey in order to help out with Daisy’s many chores is not known but Mabel’s own little family did not survive.

At least, by the time that the German Occupation of the Channel Islands commenced in 1940 Philip Henry Egan had been placed in the Jersey Home for Boys at St Martin’s.

When his Identity Card was produced by the German forces in 1942 he was a schoolboy living – inevitably – at 4 Dorset Street.

Daisy Southard, Evelyn Muriel, Joseph Alexander and Irene Maud were all living there too. Daisy also had an address at “Meadow View”, Longueville, but what had happened to Philip Henry’s parents is not clear.

They possibly had sailed to England on one of the evacuation boats just before the German forces arrived.

Of the three legitimate children of Daisy’s marriage to George William only their son William George Warren has been identified with certainty among the Occupation Identity Cards.

His was issued in 1941 when he lived at “Evadale” Undercliffe Road, St Helier.

Most likely his two sisters had married and so changed their surnames.

What happened eventually to Daisy Southard is not known.

The “cage” was removed from the Royal Court but it is not known when or why.

There remains only a small room off the back of the Royal Court which is claimed by senior court staff to have been its former location.

 This is a Draft copy of this article.

Daisy Southard-Warren’s German ID card includes her photo. Subject to agreement with the Jersey Archives this may be copied here in due course.

This article has been researched with the help of staff and volunteers at the Jersey Archives, Jersey Library and Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths.