Tag: 200 Years Ago

Another in my series of posts featuring articles from 200 years ago this week. This one is on a subject that I’ve written about before, which is the wave of mental health issues that were being reported at the time, a reminder this isn’t some new situation as a few people suggest. The article reads:

“Monday last an inquest was held at the Windmill public house, in the parish of St. Michael at Thorn, before Mr William Bell, coroner, on view of the body of Joseph Lindsey, aged 68, who hanged himself. Jurors’ verdict, non compos mentis.”

I’ve tried to delve a little into this man’s life, he was born on 4 August 1754, the son of John and Anne Lindsey. At the time of the death he lived in the St. Stephen parish of the city and he was buried on 4 November 1823 at St Stephen’s Church in Norwich. This is the church which is today a main route into the Chantry shopping centre and I don’t know if anyone purchased a gravestone for Joseph, but it isn’t there now if they did. Burials for suicides were complex at the time, but there doesn’t seem anything different about this one judging from the church register. Such a tragedy, but at least his name hasn’t been entirely lost to history, although the story behind his life might well have been.

Incidentally, the Windmill pub was located at 24 Ber Street and was damaged during an air raid in 1942, finally being demolished in 1970.

And the latest in my series of posts relating to things that happened in the news 200 years ago. I’m constantly surprised at just how much crime there was in Norfolk at this time, the newspapers have some quite violent crimes reported and there were no shortage of robberies. I’m intrigued at this one as there doesn’t seem to be much about the White Lion in Drayton on-line (the authoritative resource at https://www.norfolkpubs.co.uk/norfolkd/drayton/draytwl.htm has limited information on the pub).

The article reads:

“On Monday night last, between the hours of 12 and one o’clock, an attempt was made to enter the White Lion public house, at Drayton, by breaking through a brick wall in the back part of the premises 18 inches in thickness, ten inches in depth & two feet & an inch in breadth, which the thieves had nearly effected, when they were overheard by Mr. Howard, the landlord, who saw three men run away from the place.”

Can I just mention the detail of the journalism where the width of the wall was given to quite a high degree of accuracy. I also referred to violent crime and the article above in the newspaper was this one:

“Yesterday se’nnight, soon after eight o’clock, some evil disposed person threw with great violence, a large case knife through the shop window of No. 16 Dove Lane, without doubt to inflict some deadly wound upon some one, the wretched miscreant immediately fled and mixed with a crowd in the market-place and so evaded pursuit. The knife feel very near one of the ladies of the shop.”

Firstly, I’ve never heard of the word ‘sennight’ before, but it apparently is an archaic word for ‘a week’. Secondly, this is an horrendous crime and would make the national news if it happened today. There’s this temptation to believe that crime is somehow a recent innovation, but I can’t help thinking that it must have been a lawless and frightening time to live in Norwich.

And another in my series of posts of what was being published in the Norwich Mercury 200 years ago this week. This is a timely one as it relates to St. Andrew’s Hall and that’s where I’ll be this week, volunteering at Norwich Beer Festival. It likely won’t take place next year due to work in the halls, so I’ll have to make the most out of this one. But, back to the news story:

“On Saturday evening last, a robbery was effected at St. Andrew’s Hall, and from the appearances must have been attended with considerable violence. The thieves entered through the upper part of the window, on the right hand side of the door, and on their entrance, it is supposed, immediately broke open the desk under it. They then proceeded to the office of the Court of Requests on the other side of the passage, and forced open Mr. Herman’s desk, from which they stole from 7 to 10l worth of copper.

The villains made an attempt to break open an iron chest, but failed. Their next attempt was upon the Old Library Room, the door of which appears to have been forced open by an iron bar, the panels broken, and the lock completely forced off. A small cabinet standing in the room, containing various silver and copper coins, seems to have been one of their objects. This cabinet they robbed of several of its contents, and appear to have quietly departed. It is curious that this robbery should have effected to near to the direct beat of the watchman, whose box is within 20 yards of the Hall.”

This is an interesting reminder of the variety of ways that St. Andrew’s Hall and Blackfriars Hall have been used over the years, although none as exciting as Norwich Beer Festival of course. I note the way that the newspaper were unimpressed with the watchman who was meant to keep the area safe. I’m also intrigued by the “Court of Requests”, which seemed to deal with small claims, with Norwich being one of the first to have one. I’ll find out more….

Oh, and I’m sure I’ll post a few things about Norwich Beer Festival over the next few days to excite and delight my two loyal readers.

In my series of posts of things of interest (probably just to me, but perhaps one of my two loyal readers) in the Norwich Mercury of 200 years ago, I rather liked the angry advertisement placed in the newspaper by the Norwich Gas Light Company. They stated:

“The committee of the Norwich Gas Light Company having ascertained that a large number of the consumers of gas are in the constant habit of burning considerable after the time for which they are charged, and that some persons use it in the morning, feel it necessary to state that if such practices are continued the penalties under the Act will be strictly enforced. They have also appointed an Inspector to enable them fully to carry this resolution into effect.

Signed, by Order of the Committee, J. Athow, clerk, October 1823.”

Not long after this the Norwich Gas Light Company were purchased by the British Gas Light Company, so they must have still been a tempting acquisition. In 1825, the British Gas Light Company applied to build a gasworks at the site which is now the courts complex at Bishopgate.

I’m not sure of the situation in Norwich, but these were the wild west days for the industry with no regulation and certainly no Ofgem to keep energy companies under control. The industry was very competitive and sabotage of rival’s gas supplies were common, meaning that customers consuming more gas that they were entitled to would have been a problem in a sector which was not producing large profits.

For my latest news from 200 years ago, I was intrigued by this quite long article in the Norwich Mercury in October 1823. It feels interesting because it brings into play the evolution of the ecclesiastical courts and how their power has ebbed away over time and been replaced by the civil courts. Back in 1823, the ecclesiastical courts still had jurisdiction over matrimonial questions and probate, amongst many other things, although they were soon to go. The rules were already archaic at this point and this case showed just how problematic and dated they had become. It’s also an impressive piece of local journalism to bring a case such as this to the attention of their readership, especially on something so controversial.

“JURISDICTION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS

It is one of the facts attending the progress of society, that power conferred in the earlier and darker ages remains where and as it was bestowed, until some strange example of its pernicious exercise shews the possible effect of such a misappropriation of authority, and thus works its destruction. Such we hope and trust will be event of a case which has recently occurred in Norfolk, and which we are now about to narrate.

It will certainly, we understand, be brought under the consideration of the legislature in the next session, as is sufficient ground for the revision of that part of our code, which respects such offences. Is this district from the benevolent disposition of the prelate who presides, from the character of the officers, down to the very lowest, we have the best assurance such disposition and such character can give, that every process coming under the cognizance of the Ecclesiastical Court would be prosecuted with the most scrupulous integrity and with the utmost lenity.

This is so well known that it will acknowledged instantly and spontaneously by all our readers. What then must be the nature and principle of those laws under which an injustice so fragrant, and perpetuated by such agents as we shall describe, can be committed, and when men so amiable and so upright as the good Bishop of our diocese and the officers of this court can be made the unwilling instruments of such a legal injury. What evil, what misery might be brought upon individuals by such powers if exercised by men of an opposite temper and precipitate in their judgements? But to the facts.

The religious society of methodists to divide into certain classes of different denominations, and to each a class-leader is appointed. He solemnly takes upon himself the care of his class, and engages to admonish any of them concerning their mural aberrations. A person in a village in Norfolk this situated, heard that the daughter of one of his class was cohabiting with a married man, the father of a large family. The class-leader privately urged upon his friend the duty of endeavouring to put an end to such a connection. The man exhorted his daughter to quit a course to grossly immoral, who it is presumed, communicated the fact to her adorer. Inflamed by the representation, he one Sunday awaited the return of the class-leader from meeting, and assailed him in the bitterest language. The daughter of the class-leader, a girl of most excellent character, in service in the neighbourhood, interposed in her father’s behalf; the anger of the aggressor was turned against her, and he abused her in terms alike indecent and undeserved.

The next morning, this girl whilst at work before the dour of her master’s house, perceived the woman who was the cause of the previous dispute, in the road, accompanied by another; an altercation ensued, and it is probably much ill language passed on both sides. This woman (the accused) shortly after entered the house of a man in the neighbourhood, a relation of the class-leader, whom she supposed to have some share in promoting the admonition she had received, and reviled him in the presence of his wife and family so violently, that he was compelled to turn her out, but he positively denies having used any abusive language towards her.

 Soon after, the daughter of the class-leader and the man last mentioned, were summoned to appear before the Ecclesiastical Court on a charge of defamation. All these circumstances occurred in the middle of the year 1821. She attended the court many times at a distance of twelve miles from her home, for examination. This examination, it seems, was conducted by her Judges. The accusers and the accused were never confronted. Such is the practice of the court. In this way she was convicted of defamation, and order to pay court fees to the amount of fifteen pounds. For these fees she was arrested about the middle of 1843 and carried to Norwich Castle for the debt. The man (her relation) was convicted and ordered to pay a sum of twenty three pounds, for which he also was arrested and thrown into prison.

The evidence upon which these persons were convicted, is understood to have been the woman accused, a woman who had an illegitimate child by the brother of the accused, and a third female who had been imprisoned for disorderly conduct. The case was made known to persons who undertook to enquire into the circumstances, and, who finding it to be exactly as we have stated, but nevertheless conducted according to the strictest forms of law, paid the debt, liberated the prisoners, and intend to bring the revision of law under the consideration of Parliament. We ought perhaps to add, that the proctor employed by the accusers offered to compromise for a small sum, but this compromise the parties from a sense of the injustice (and perhaps not anticipating the result) refused to accept.

In such a case it appears for us to be highly desirable, that there should be some public, some general expression of abhorrent feeling: and we venture to suggest that a subscription, not to exceed one shilling (or five at most) from each contributor, which has been already begun for payment of the sum, he opened to the country, in order to mark the detestation in which such powers can but be held by every upright mind. Several gentlemen, who have been made acquainted with the proceedings, coincide in this opinion, and the printers of this paper will willingly register the names and receive the contributions of all persons who may be disposed to aid the repeat of a law so obviously liable to abuse and perversion. Indeed we hope to see the whole law relative to defamation and personal abuse revised and put upon a footing that such assaults (which are often very grievous to the individual) may be punished without the admission of power now existing – a power which, as it appears in this instance, may be exercised to crush its victims, even fair claim to the redress it was originally designed to administer. There is no question of party, not advanced for party purposes, but for general right and for general good. We therefore hope to see the Gentlemen of the County stand forward and join in the reprobation of a transaction upon which there can be but one opinion.”