1. : Timeframe
Many (most?) pubs had names since the Year Dot;
but it was not until 1751 that the law required this.
Reference was made to "at the sign of", so that
a physical representation of the name was also demanded.
The 'recognizance' document example below
is from 1760.
George III was enthroned in that year, but the
Norwich Magistrates were, unsurprisingly, still
using forms printed in the reign of George II.
So a defaulting licensee might try to get out of paying
the current King,but I suspect that the precise wording
(abbreviated in the example below) would catch
him or her[1].
The forms were essentially the same as late as 1806
(still George III).
[1] So long ago, yet the forms were designed
(with 'h ') to allow female licensees.
Available records are nearly all for 1760 - 1763,
or the year 1806.
Sadly, hardly any records appear to exist
for the period 1764 - 1805.
2. : The Document
In this extract, the Licensee is (say) Mr. Joe Beer.
He was required to produce the name of another,
who would also stand surety for him - (say)
Mr. Fred Bloggs.
. . . . Joe Beer, of the Parish of St. Peter's
and Fred Bloggs of the Parish of St. Other, came
before us, Mr. X and Mr. Y, two of His Majesty's
Justices of the Peace for the said City and County,
and did each of them [agree to] owe the King
£10 (Joe Beer) and £x (Fred Bloggs) if default
shall be made in the Condition under-written.
CONDITION of this Recognizance is such that
whereas the above-bounden Joe Beer is allowed by
the Justices above-named to keep a Common
Ale-House in the House wherein he dwelleth,
known by the sign of the [Black Horse],
for one Year from 29th September. (etc.) . . . . .
If therefore the said Joe Beer shall not during the
Continuance of his said Licence permit or suffer any
unlawful Games to be used in his said house, or any
Disorders to be committed therein, contrary to the
Articles contained in his said Licence, but shall
during the said Term keep and maintain good
Order and Government, agreeable to the said
Articles, and to the Laws and Statutes relating to the same :
Then this Recognizance to be void or else
to remain in full Force, Power and Virtue.
Signed X
Signed Y
3. : Observations
By far the most important phrase in the document, from
the point of view of research on the pubs themselves is -
(to keep) a Common Ale-House
in the House wherein he dwelleth
No provision seems to have been made for a Licensee
to run a pub whilst living off the premises - as many do today.
The amounts claimed from defaulters were very large
indeed, in contemporary values, especially as both
parties had to cough-up. The amount for the
non-Licensee was variable (as per the form),
but usually the same £10.
Other interesting points, in sequence, are -
- The first-named Parish (St. Peter's)
contained the pub;
- The co-applicant might live in that
or any other Parish;
- The Licence had to be renewed annually;
- The Licensing Year was "always"
from 29th September.
^Top^
| |
4. : Interpretation
As there were at least 420 pubs in 1760/3, the idea
of having to issue that many documents - all at
the one time - is rather mind-boggling. The same
signatories seem to appear on all documents, so some
people may have begun to suffer from Writers' Cramp.
Obtaining the evidence of conformity, or otherwise,
of all the Licensees (during the past year) must also
have been a huge task for the Justices and their staff.
Budding barrack-room lawyers, reading the 1760 terms
only fairly closely, may think that the Licensee was
going to be penalised if he behaved well, instead of badly !!
The clue is in the word 'void' - i.e. the penalties
cannot be enforced on and via a void document.
On the other hand, the full Force, Power and Virtue
of the document will be visited upon any Landlord
who runs a disorderly house. Quite right, too.
5. : Landlords
The Recognizance document required the occupation
of the landlord. 'Landlord' would not do, as he/she
probably wasn't - literally - and few were working
full-time at the pub. As Riddington Young explains,
most licensees had a more important "day-job".
Analysis of the occupations gives interesting results,
particularly on a parish-by-parish basis, in the period 1760-64.
For example, out of 39 parishes[1], fifteen had no
full-timers: and a further eleven had only one
Innkeeper/Victualler/Publican/Vintner.
Conversely, the 'busiest' parishes had far more.
These were, most notably, St. Peter Mancroft
and St. Stephen. This is not surprising . . . .
Until the building of the first Mall (Castle Mall),
the central shopping (and administrative) area was
(v. roughly) bounded by Guildhall Hill, London Street,
Castle Meadow, Red Lion Street, Rampant Horse Street,
Theatre Street and St. Peter's Street.
(Library, City Hall).
The Walk, Haymarket and Brigg Street still form
the 'spine' of the area covered by the two parishes mentioned.
In 1760-64 there were 81 pubs in those parishes.
If only that were the case today!!
Full-timers represented 32% of that total, and
- more significantly - the 26 principal (full-time)
pubs equalled 39% of all such City pubs.
Only one other parish had more than
3 principal pubs - strangely, St. Michael at Plea.
[1] Of the 43 parishes, 4 had less than 3 pubs,
so were omitted.
6. : Weavers etc.
Sticking to 1760-64, the percentage of pubs
manned by full-timers was, overall, only 15.5%
- so what of the remainder?
No attempt has been made to count butchers, bakers or
or candlestick-makers; although bakers have always
had close pub-associations. So we have some
43.5% of 'landlords' with miscellaneous trades.
But, as Young has explained, the trade has often
featured in the name of the pub.
This leaves 41% who were all weavers,
often described as worsted weavers.
We may ask whether weaving was the commonest trade
and/or the worst-paid, or simply convenient to pursue
in individual houses.
Of 143 newly-listed pubs in 1806/7, only 10 were
held by weavers : a sea-change in that trade in just
40-plus years.
Other results, from the returns for 1806/7, include
32 more principal (full-time) pubs, being 22% -
an improvement on 15.5% earlier.
Of course, it is also the case that 37 pubs were 'upgraded'
(as well as many lost) over the previous 40 years or so.
Those pubs acquiring the status [as termed] principal
were, once again, headed by the Mancroft/Stephen axis (5 each).
But this should be seen in relation to :-
- Only 3 new principal pubs, out of 21 accretions;
- Ten upgraded pubs = 27% of all upgrades.
Other prosperous areas, by 1806,
were associated with the Cattle Market.
Principal pubs, upgraded or added :-
- St. Michael at Thorn (Ber Street and Castle Hill) : 8
- St. John de Sepulchre (Ber Street) : 7
- St. John Timberhill : 5
- St. Peter Parmentergate
(King Street and Castle Hill) : 6
The other significant increase (6) was in
the burgeoning suburb of Heigham.
|