HOME · LATEST 100 POSTS · BAR BILLIARDS · GOOD BEER GUIDE · NORWICH MARKET · FLIGHTS · RAILWAYS · INDIAN MEALS · CONTACT

Tag: Arminghall

  • 200 Years Ago in Norwich : A Warning Against Shooting in Bixley and Arminghall

    200 Years Ago in Norwich : A Warning Against Shooting in Bixley and Arminghall

    This notice appeared in the Norwich Mercury in September 1826 and relates to the manors of Bixley and Arminghall, immediately south of Norwich. It announced that game on the two estates was being strictly preserved and warned people against hunting or shooting there. In the language of the period, “sporting” meant pursuing animals such as hares, pheasants and partridges rather than participating in an especially vigorous game of bar billiards.

    What makes the notice more interesting is the distinction it draws between “qualified” and “unqualified” people. Under the Game Laws then in force, the right to kill game was largely restricted to men with substantial property interests, certain long-term leaseholders and the eldest sons of esquires or men of higher social rank. Merely possessing a gun and finding a conveniently positioned pheasant was therefore insufficient in the eyes of the wealthy.

    Those legally qualified to shoot were politely “requested” to stay away from the estates, while unqualified people were warned that they would be prosecuted without further notice. Being qualified did not give anyone the right to enter another person’s land, but the difference in tone is revealing. Wealthy sportsmen received a courteous announcement, while everyone else was informed that the authorities would be dealing with them and prosecution was likely.

    The property qualification was abolished by the Game Act 1831, just five years after this notice appeared, although shooting still required the appropriate permission and certificate. It is a small snapshot of a different time, when hunting rights were determined by wealth, property and the apparently vital matter of whether someone’s father was sufficiently grand. You don’t get that in bar billiards.

  • Arminghall – Robert Breeze

    I haven’t spent much time looking at this data set before, but they’re the lists of habitual criminals during the nineteenth century. I’m focused on Arminghall at the moment (for anyone wondering why there is a flurry of posts about Bixley and Arminghall, it’s because I’m leading a walk there), so Robert Breeze caught my eye.

    The document above tells me that he was born in 1847, he worked as a labourer, he was single, he had a fair complexion, he had blue eyes, he was stout in shape, 5″3′ tall and had an oval shape head. For anyone who is doing their family tree then hope for a criminal, there’s certainly lots of information about them and many even have photos.

    Further than that, the document tells me that he was born in Wymondham and that he spent the period from 19 February to 18 June 1891 at Norwich prison. Norwich prison on Mousehold Heath had opened in 1887, replacing the prison within Norwich Castle, so he was located in a more modern building.

    As can be seen above, he also had four previous convictions (and some acquittals) and was planning to live in Trowse, which is near to Arminghall, on his release. Some of this crimes are breaches of the Elementary Education Act, so I assume from this he has children. Incidentally, what on earth was happening in Kenninghall and Mr. Hurrell? Probably best not to know.

    A little digging in the Norwich Mercury covering the assizes (or trials) showed that the judge in charge was Sir Charles Edward Pollock, the Baron of the Court of the Exchequer. He sentenced our (I call him our, I feel I nearly know him now) Robert Breeze to his four months in prison, with hard labour, for stealing fowl in Arminghall on 28 January 1891. Breeze pleaded guilty to the crime, with the fowl belonging to Arthur Stimpson and it was valued at 2s 6d.

    In August 1892, the Norfolk Chronicle reported that a Robert Breeze had been charged with being drunk whilst in charge of a horse and cart on St. Stephen’s Plain in Norwich. At the time this Robert was living at Villa Gardens in Lakenham, a pub which closed in 1895, which might not have been ideal. The newspaper also noted that Robert Breeze was also known as Robert Woods, although our Breeze was definitely his real name as I’ve found his birth records.

    In March 1896, the Norfolk News reported that a Robert Breeze was found in Ber Street in Norwich rather under the influence at just before eleven at night. Police Constable Coleman suggested that he stopped swearing and went home. Our Robert “refused to do anything of the kind and he made use of some disgusting language”, to which he found himself “marched to the police station”. He was fined 15 shillings for his behaviour which is around £65 in today’s money if we use the National Archives currency converter. For someone who was “of no fixed residence” I’m not sure how that was paid.

    The problem with these two drunken cases, and also from here is that there are two men called Robert Breeze in Norfolk who commit crimes in the last few years of the nineteenth century and also into the early twentieth century. They are two men, our Robert and a much younger one. Unfortunately, the records don’t make it clear which individual the court papers and newspaper reports are referring to, so I’d like to think that things went well for our Robert. They probably didn’t given the time and social conditions when he lived, but I can’t find his death details to be able to work out what happened.

  • Arminghall – St. Mary’s Church Arminghall (Wall Paintings)

    The historic record for Arminghall Church notes that there was a sixteenth century wall painting of St. Christopher which was destroyed. I was intrigued to know exactly when this little piece of destruction took place, and I have been able to narrow it down to the summer of 1876.

    It was during late 1876 that a group from the Norfolk and Norwich Archaeological Society decided to take a trip to numerous locations across the county. One of them was a visit to St. Mary’s which they discovered was “undergoing repair”. This was indeed the case, as John Pollard Seddon was leading a large restoration and rebuilding of the church, changing it to reflect Victorian requirements.

    I can imagine the group’s irritation when they discovered that Seddon had done away with what was apparently a beautiful wall painting, replacing it what he must have thought was a delightful white wall. The report from the time says that the group discovered that the painting on the south wall had been “stripped” and added “much to the chagrin of a few of the party”. I’m surprised he managed to only upset a few of the party….

    Fortunately a copy of the murals had been drawn before they had been destroyed, I’ll have to at some point look for that…..

  • Arminghall – St. Mary’s Church Arminghall (Tunnels)

    There is a story in the Norfolk Chronicle in 1898 that an elderly local countryman had told their correspondent that there was a tunnel which led from Caistor camp to Arminghall Church. The correspondent didn’t take that suggestion very seriously, but he noted that the countryman had said that he himself had been in the Caistor end. I still like this story, which is somewhat beyond the realms of possibility, solely because it adds a little extra magic to the church.