Catton in 1851 (continued)

Comparison with other rural villages points to Catton having a generally higher standard of living in 1851 than the East Anglian norm. If it is compared with Fressingfield, for instance, Catton's lower number of  persons  per house (4.47 against 5.01 (16)) and higher percentage of domestic servants is apparent. Employing a large number of servants  was very much a status symbol in Victorian England. A high number of servants in relation to the population would be expected of a tiny " closed" parish in which a few important landowners controlled the local economy. Catton, however, was too populous and had too many landowners to be considered truly "closed". It must therefore be assumed that the employment of so many servants (almost one in eight of Catton's total population was a servant as compared with one in 40 in Fressingfield) was a clear reflection of the large number of affluent citizens in the locality.  This is further underlined by the fact that a higher proportion of Catton's households had servants (29, or more than a quarter of, local households).  So, not only were there more domestic servants in Catton, but a higher proportion of local households hired them.  Perhaps partly as a result of the lightening of their personal workload, a greater percentage of Catton people (6.3%) were living more than 65 years than was the case in either Fressingfield  or, for instance, Ashworthy in Devon (17).

All the facts noted in the paragraph above point to Catton's overall standard of living being reasonably high for mid-nineteenth century England.  But while the parish contained a considerable number of affluent citizens poverty remained very real. As was the case nationally considerable wealth existed but it's distribution was not widespread.  At a time when large landowners were enjoying incomes running into four figures the local school teachers might hope to earn one hundred pounds per annum.  Male domestic servants and agricultural labourers would be fortunate to earn 30 pounds a year while working women received perhaps half that amount (18).

At the bottom of the income scale were the paupers. Catton had long had a relatively low proportion of poor inhabitants. As was noted earlier in this article, the hearth tax returns for Catton indicate this as early as 1664 (see Figure 1).  A similar finding was made by a parliamentary enquiry of 1818 (see Figure 2).  In 1851 the level of poverty in Catton remained by contemporary standards low. The parish contained only ten paupers (1.6% of the local population), a level of poverty influenced both by Catton's social structure and the nearness of Norwich. Poverty in Catton appears to have usually resulted either from widowhood or old age.

In Norwich "outdoor relief" was easily available.  The city followed its own enlightened scheme in preference to the 1834 national arrangements which the country areas were using by the 1840's.  The workhouse or "spike" was little used in Norfolk (82% of the county's able-bodied paupers received outdoor relief in the 1850's (19)) and the Norfolk unions were not always noted for their motivation or efficiency. Indeed, Catton's local poor law union was one of the least generous.  The boards varied, notes  A. Digby, from the efficient to "the inefficiency and financial economies of Erpingham and St. Faiths" (20).  The resultant low poor rates were, as we will see later, typical of a relatively "closed" parish.

So although it is likely that pauperism and perhaps unemployment were under-recorded in the census for social reasons there seems no reason to  question the limited amount of poverty indicated in 1851 Catton.  One would expect able-bodied paupers to move in search of either work or better poor relief, both of which were potentially available in nearby Norwich. Those who could not leave in this way made up the tiny local group of paupers.  One was a 32 year old seamstress widow whose period of poverty may have been short, the other nine were over the age of 65.  The two males were both former agricultural labourers.  Various other forms of charity existed for those who found life economically difficult. Most local charities provided an annual payment to a number of local poor.  One such charity was John Norman's, founded in 1726, which gave sixpence each to 20 village poor annually.  William Bussey's charity provided one pound per annum for poor relief (21).  In an attempt to protect themselves against temporary pauperism due to illness or unemployment Catton people had set up a benefit society in 1826. The society was "instituted for the purpose of relieving its members under afflictions by a subscription" (22).

Benefit or friendly societies had begun at the end of the 17th century and grown rapidly after 1760.  By the 19th century their membership far exceeded any other social institution with the exception of the churches, reaching four million by 1872 (23).  Often their growth was encouraged by the local gentry: "the ruling classes (in contrast to their attitude towards trade unions) were prepared to welcome (and control) the friendly societies as institutions of working class self- help, while regretting that they "wasted"  time and money on conviviality.  Yet without the opportunities for social intercourse which they provided, the friendly societies would not have flourished as they did.  They catered for a need for community and a craving for fellowship..." (24).  At the benefit society a man "would be welcomed as a brother not treated as a hand" (25).

Catton's society was instituted in about 1760 and its early beginnings may reflect its encouragement by what Hobsbawn and Rude called the "humanitarian gentry of the late 18th century" (26). In Norfolk in general benefit societies were still relatively rare in the early 19th century, but they were to develop rapidly after 1850 (27). Critics, such as William Cobbett, claimed that the benefit societies benefited the rich more than the poor (28), relieving the better-off of some of their obligation to provide poor relief.  In addition, the society rules encouraged the "respectable" behaviour which many landowners and leading parish figures would have strongly approved of.

Despite any criticisms the societies continued to thrive. Writing of Ringmere in Sussex, P. Ambrose describes how the benefit societies were "each based on a public house where business was transacted and annual dinners held" (29). The social make-up of the societies was mostly working class, he continues, but with important parish figures present at dinners. The Catton Society must have been very similar to this - holding its meetings in the "Queens (Maids?) Head" in the 1820's and, later, at the "Magpie" and "Royal Oak" (1855). The "Maids Head" was owned by George Morse,Esq., of Catton Hall in 1843 which leads one to speculate on the possible encouragement of the benefit society by the earlier Hall owner, Jeremiah Ives. The new “venues” for society meetings may perhaps reflect the changing nature of the benefit society and its supporters in the middle of the century. The “Maids Head” was used for meetings by the parochial council in the late nineteenth century (30) as was the “Royal Oak” and the “George Inn.”

Through the local charities and their benefit societies, together with the paternalism of the more wealthy members of the community and the help of family, neighbours and friends, Catton’s working class sought to remain free of the social stigma of pauperism during short periods of potential poverty.

The paternalism mentioned above remained important in a society in which real power lay in a few hands. “The vestry meeting, which consisted of local householders gathered together in the vestry under the leadership of the clergy, tended to oversee church property, to supervise the relief of the poor raised in voluntary poor rates on property and to provide such general welfare care as existed.” These limited provisions were controlled “by a mixture of archaic and specialised authorities dominated either by the Church, the minor landed aristocracy or by both” (31). The status quo remained strongly entrenched in local society.

To the estate workers living in Church Street with the large farms surrounding them and the Hall grounds facing them, the “Manor House” to their right with St. Margaret's church beside it, the power and consolidation of “their betters” positions must have seemed complete. As we have seen, even the local benefit society met in a pub owned by George Morse (the “Maids Head” on Catton Street). Besides this stood more tied cottages from which a magnificent view of Catton Hall and its wooded grounds could be glimpsed. From the Hall the village and, indeed, Norwich, were almost invisible, obscured by the trees in the park landscaped by Humphry Repton. Some historians, such as Hobsbawn and Rude, have described the almost total division between the “official” and the “dark” village, between labourers and employers (32). The landscaped parks of  “closed” parishes symbolise this division to a certain extent, but the involvement of the gentry in the life of the community must not be forgotten. As has been noted at many points in this study, all aspects of Catton’s life were strongly influenced by its major landowners and employers.

The combination of social paternalism and deference within a relatively small  “action space” helped create a sense of “community” rather than a class-based society. There was no distinct geographical division of the parish on class grounds, though in some areas one social class tended to predominate (the working class on George Hill, for instance). The sense of shared territory which many Catton residents must have felt was, as P. Ambrose noted, “a powerful link between people”. This was a society in which most local residents shared at least some interest in agriculture. To quote Thomas Hardy: “even at the dinner parties of the professional families the subjects of discussion were corn, cattle-disease, sowing and reaping, fencing and planting”(33).

To these were added, at times of agricultural depression (notably 1843 and 1844), increased amounts of poaching and the problem of arson. Poaching was virtually regarded as a right by many Norfolk labourers living in “open” villages. Much of this crime was difficult to control in such parishes, but the Catton situation was rather different. Catton had a powerful group of landowners / employers resident within its boundaries and, it seems, was a community closely regulated by those individuals. It is no surprise to find that Catton gave its name to the local police division (34).

A form of disruption which greatly concerned the Victorian middle- and upper classes was drunkenness. In East Anglia this was especially prevalent as a result of  “largesse” after the harvest supper. Labourers would move around the village begging from the houses of friends or tradesmen of their employer. In some places they were given beer, in others money…which they spent on beer. Drinking was an important part of rural life, the local inns being, for most of the male community, their social centres. This was especially true of the young casually employed labourers who often had abundant free time. The inns also highlighted the social barriers between the various groups in the social hierarchy. No section of the community was coherently working towards the destruction of the existing order and social distinctions and deference remained extremely important. “In the clubroom members of the local benefit society held their monthly club night and their annual dinner…farmers and tradesmen met in the bar to discuss political, social and economic questions with each other…labourers, who could talk more freely in the absence of their masters, preferred the taproom or the kitchen” (35). The different social classes mixed mainly with those of their own class. When the classes met at weddings, harvest suppers and the like the established social conventions were maintained.

The lives of most Catton people were spent entirely within their corner of Norfolk. Mobility was to increase in the coming decades and always varied between the classes, but the majority of working people had little experience of the world beyond Catton, Norwich and its neighbouring parishes. “The labourer,” as A. Hawkins puts it, “both in his workplace and in his social and cultural life, inhabited a local world” (36).

Catton had a more limited range of tradesmen than more isolated parishes and its traders would have been vital local centres of communication. The public houses were of course important in this regard (and will be further considered below) but as Richard Muir reminds us, other communal places had their part to play too. The local smithy was a meeting place for the village menfolk, “especially the out-of-work, infirm and elderly who sheltered from the cold around the warm blast of the forge” (37). Catton’s blacksmiths worked in Church Street, presumably deriving much of their work from the Hall farm which stood on the opposite side of the road.

Most important of all in many villages were the local shops. “Poorly stocked with meagre home-made and manufactured items, they were often started in the front room by the mother of the family” (38). Since regular travel into Norwich was difficult for many Catton people “the shop provided the basic essentials of life – scanty provisions, medical attention in the form of “advice” and patent medicines, help with forms and letters, gossip, and that most important of commodities – credit” (39). The 1851 census lists only two possible “shopkeepers” in Catton – Thomas Walker, baker, of George Road and Edmund Holmes, postmaster of Catton Street. If the village had other “shops” they must have been very small. It may be that village people obtained these essentials just outside the parish or made many things themselves. The likelihood that Catton people bought things just outside Catton is underlined by two facts. Firstly, the number of shops and services available nearby, in the new suburban areas, by 1851, and, secondly, the position of what appears to have been an important local shop. Thomas Walker, whose bakers shop is actually on the parish boundary, must have been very important to local people. He was described as a “baker and grocer” in 1836 and 1850. His shop had a “baking office” providing a vital service to local working people. In addition, in 1845 he was described as a flour dealer and his shop was the post office.

Thanks to private transport the better-off had ready access to the facilities of Norwich, allowing both shopping and communication with the increasingly complex world around them. For labouring people, working long hours, life was more isolated. The small tradesmen such as the cordwainers (shoemakers) and various journeymen provided a vital link between the labourers and the outside world. “The world of the written word, of wider national ideology and politics…even if they could read, the chances were that they had access overwhelmingly to devotional literature” (40). The parish community was “a very real unit in the lives of the labourers” – a reality made only stronger by the development of the Poor Law after 1834 (41).

The rural establishment were often suspicious of places where working people met “unsupervised”. This unease was not entirely surprising given the fact that rural discontent was a serious problem in parts of East Anglia. “Riot, arson and cattle-maiming meant that an undeclared civil war was waged in Norfolk for much of the nineteenth century” (42). Most suspect as breeding grounds of discontent were beerhouses. They were thought to be only visited by people who were “not respectable” and were kept by “petty tradesmen who rather get their bread by any other way than by hard labour” (43). Parishes with both beerhouses and nonconformist chapels were considered especially “troublesome” – Catton had neither kind of establishment within its borders. Others blamed non-resident landowners and clergymen for rural discontent (44). Again, this factor was not present in Catton. Indeed, the parish seems to have had none of the characteristics found by T.C. Foster to be typical of disturbed parishes. Outstanding amongst these features “were the low standard of living and the all-pervading insecurity” (45).

It seems then that little unrest was likely to occur in Catton drinking places (or in the community more generally). The agricultural labourers found the inns and public houses attractive for a number of reasons. Alcohol was, of course, important to many of these men who spent long hours doing hard physical work. They were also comfortable social centres, warm, light and sometimes offering better seating than the labourer's home. They might even provide newspapers. “The purchase of a drink was the …entry fee to the comforts which…prevailing social conditions enabled them to enjoy only communally”(46). Several Norwich brewing families had residences in mid-Victorian Catton. These men would clearly have favoured “respectable” drinking places as outlets for their products.

A large proportion of Catton’s area was owned by three people: George Morse, William Gowing and Mary Chambers. Only the first of these was resident in the parish at that time. Between them they owned, according to the 1843 tithe apportionment, 56% of Catton’s land area. The distribution of their holdings is shown in Map 3, with the uses to which the land was put illustrated in Map 4. Although these three landowners had considerable influence within Catton they were not all-powerful. The entire southern third of the parish, areas around the church in the very heart of the village and much of the eastern land remained outside their control. Catton was not a totally “closed” parish – six other landowners owned a further 29% of its area. The remaining 15% was “owner occupied”.

This having been said, Catton was still essentially a “closed” parish. In an era of rural discontent it remained, predominantly, a well-ordered and prosperous community. The contrast between the smaller “closed” and larger, less supervised “open” settlements was important to contemporaries. “Open” parishes often contained cottages built by small speculators. They were prone to riot, were independent in religious matters and housed large numbers of artisans. “Closed” parishes, by contrast, “are easily distinguishable by the small numbers of well-built, model cottages blessed with Neo-Gothic decoration and tidy cottage gardens which cluster in semi-feudal dependence near the gates of the Hall” (47).

Such a description fits Catton’s Church Street perfectly. It had estate buildings, estate cottages (built by J.H. Gurney after purchasing the estate in 1852) – originally with planned front gardens – and the parish church. The Hall and its estate dominated the centre of the parish with other farms around it and the Georgian mansions along the edge of the Hall Park.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 6 of 13

◄ Page 5 | Page 7 ►