Hi Margaret, Yes it would be of great interest to us, and thanks for taking the time to contact us. With Best Wishes Julie Webb, Soham Roots. >From: "Margaret Paxton" <mlpaxton@rmci.net> >Reply-To: ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com >To: ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [ENG-CAMB] SOHAM 1841 CENSUS ON LINE >Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:15:11 -0600 > > >Dear Tim and Julie, > > I recently searched the online archives of The Times of London and >found >several stories about Soham going back to the 1800s. Just now I found a >report of a fire in 1846 which destroyed 13 houses. Quite a number of >indviduals and their businesses are mentioned. Would this be of interest >to >you? > >Regards, >Margaret >mlpaxton@rmci.net >. > > > >==== ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE Mailing List ==== >. > _________________________________________________________________ It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

Dear List, Here is part 2 of the Soham Fire story. The Late Fire at Soham.—We have already published an account of the fire, which commenced on the premises of Mrs. Peachey, of Hall-street, on Friday morning last. An active inquiry into the origin of the calamity was instituted. It resulted in the apprehension of Cornelius Harvey and his nephew, James Harvey; the former is a man of independent property, and the latter a grocer and draper of the town. The premises of the younger prisoner were burned, and the charge preferred against them was the ignition of the house of Mrs. Peachey with a view of the destruction of that of James Harvey. The stock and premises of James are stated to have been over-insured, and he was indebted to his uncle 300l., the desire for the realization of which, by defrauding the Suffolk Fire-office, would seem to have led them to the commission of the act with which they stand charged. The prisoners were examined before Mr. J. Dobede, resident magistrate, at the Crown Hotel, on Friday. It appeared that although the whole of the younger prisoner’s stock was saved, he had claimed from the office the full amount of his insurance. Such other evidence was adduced as warranted the remand of the prisoners. The Times, July 9, 1846; pg 3; Issue 19284; col F

Dear List, This is the final report that appeared in The Times. The Incendiary Fire at Soham Cambridge, Sunday Night In compliance with a prevous arrangement, the magistrates of Soham, the Rev. Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Dobede, were engaged the whole of yesterday (Saturday) at theCrown Inn, in investigating certain charges preferred against Mr. Cornelius Harvey, a wealthy farmer, and his nephew, James Harvey, suppoed to be feloniously concerned in the origin of the recent fire in that village. It will be recollected that the prisoners underwent a brief examination on the day after the fire, and were remanded to the county gaol at Cambridge until yesterday, when they were brought up, in the custody of Mr. Orridge, the governor. It was evident, from the crowded state of the room, and the anxiety evinced in behalf of the elder prisoner, that he was musch respected in the district. He is between 50 and 60 yers of age, and had lived in the village the greater part of his life. The nephew is a young unmarried man, and from appearances seemed to have passed an irregular career. In reference to the inquiry it should be observed, that for the last two months the village and neighbourhood had been the scene of much excitement in consequence of the outbreak of a series of incendiary fires. To such an extent had the alarm in the district arisen, that the farmers formed themselves into a body to guard their property at night. Notwithstanding this protection fires appear to have happened, and even in the very street where the conflagration occurred on Friday morning ten previous attempts had been made evidently to cause the havoc that has at last been accomplished. The village, as entered by the road from Ely, presents a most desolate appearance. About a third of it appears to be in ashes; nearly the whole of the eastern part of Hall-street—the principal thoroughfare—is consumed, the entire ruins covdring a space of six or seven acres. Up to yesterday fire and smoke were still issuing from various parts of the ruins. The prisoner Cornelius Harvey occupied a neat farmhouse at the extreme end of Hall-street (the main road that passes through the village from Ely to New market), apart from the row of houses on that side of the street. His farming premises are on the opposite side of the road some 200 or 300 yards distant. The nephew occupied a grocer’s and general provision shop about the centre of the row of houses already noticed, with a sort of warehouse at the back, which abutted on the premises of Mr. Pachey, farmer, where the flames were first seen to issue, On each side of Mr. Pachey’s premises was a large number of farming buildings, comprising barns, stables, granaries, stacks, &c., and a windmill, belonging to Messrs. Staples, Morden, and others the whole flanked in front by the houses in Hall-street. Some idea may be formed of the awful extent of the fire when it is stated that the whole of this property, back and front, together with orchards and hedges, was destroyed. The most distressing circumstance is, that the chief part of the occupants of the houses in Hall-street were hardworking industrious families, who have lost all they possessed, and, not being insured, are reduced to much distress. The buildings, 17 in number, however, were insured in the Suffolk Insurance-office for 6,000l. The prosecution was instituted by that company, an agent of which attended to watch the proceedings; and Mr. Isaacson, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the accused. Shortly after the inquiry had sommenced the chariman, the Rev. Mr. Bennett, perceiving the reporter taking notes of the evidence, addressed him and begged that he would refrain from taking any portion of the evidence. It was a private investigation, and with inquiries of that description it was highly necessary that the evidence should not be published until adduced at the trial. He suggested that course with a view of preventing juries from being prejudiced, or the ends of justice being defeated. He knew one or two instances where the publication of evidence had had that tendency. The reporter remarked that he should be happy to attend to any suggestion from the Bench; but, from the fact of the court being certainly an open one, according to appearances, he thought the same practice was adopted as at other judicial inquireies. (The proceedings were held in the large room of the inn, and the door was open for the ingress and egress of the public, who crowded it almost to suffocation.) The rev. Chairman then consulted his clerk, and observed that magistrates, investigations were certainly private, at least in his district (he is the chairman of the Newmarket bench), and, on all grave charges, he excluded reporters. As the reporter was present, however, he would allow him to remain, and would leave it to his discretion not to publish any portion of the evidence that was llikely to have the evil tendency he had alluded to. As nothing transpired in the evidence that would have the effect anticipated by the rev. chairman, we subjoin a brief narrative of the testimony adduced. It was extremely voluminous, 15 or 16 witnesses being examined. The elder prisoner’s apprehension apeared to have resulted from a voluntary statement made by him. Having been noticed by a private watchman, a few minutes before the outbreak, walking from the spot where the flames were first seen to rise, viz., Mr. Pachey’s farm, he was interrogated on the subject. He admitted being the individual, and said that he had been watching about the neighbourhood the greater part of the night, and that when he went home he went to bed, but did not pull off his clothes. The reason he gave was, that he was fearful something would happen, and on being further questioned why he watched that particular spot, he replied, that “he expected a fire would break out, “ but gave no satisfactory account why he entertained such a supposition. These and other suspicious circumstances being reported to the magistrates, his apprehension was ordered, and, in addition to the watchman’s statement, other witnesses spoke positively to having seen him walking up and down a by-lane at the back of Mr. Pachey’s farm, and every now and then peeping through the hedge in the direction of the spot where the fire broke out. It was attempted to be shown for the defence that the prisoner had been watching his own property,--that it had been his practice to be on the watch for several weeks past, but, on the night in question, the witnesses declared that he had been watching some distance from his farm; he was viewing the premises of Messrs. Pachey and Staples. As regards the younger prisoner, he had insured his stock in trade in the Suffolk Fire Insurance-office formt he sum of 350l. The fire did not originate in his premises, but in one of the barns of Mr. Pachey that stood within a few feet of his warehouse, which subsequently caught. When broken open by the inhabitants very little property was found in the place. The day after the fire he was met by an assistant agent of the company he was insured in, who, seeing the he had hurt his hand, asked him how it happened. He answered that it was done during the fire in attempting to save his goods. The agent inquired of him if any had been saved, to which he made answer, “Nothing whatever; and he had lost twice as much as he was insured for.” In the latter part of the day the prisoner made his claim of the amount of his loss to the agent, upon which he was given into custody on a charge of attempting to defraud the company, proof having been adduced showing that he had, prior to the fire, removed the chief bulk of his stock, &c., to various parts of the town. Witness spoke of the prisoner having frequently alluded to the danger that that part of the village was exposed to in the event of Mr. Pachey’s premises taking fire. He had pointed to a barn, observing, “If that goes, my shop must go,” and it was in this barn that the fire was first perceived. He had been heard to say that he did not care for his neighbours who were not insured. He did not care for a fire, as he was fully insured. “He should like to see all those (alluding to his neighbours’ dwellings) in flames that were not insured, This conversation arose after the second attempt to fire the street.. With a view of showing that the prisoners acted in concert, it was proved that the elder prisoner had advanced his nephew 300l. to set him up on business, and attempts were made to show that the uncle urged its payment, and had connived to obtain the amount of insurance on his nephew’s goods, but a witness swore positively that the sum was advanced as a gift to start the nephew in business. Another witness was called, who had valued the salvage of the nephew’s property, and in the course of his surveys the prisoner begged that he would do all he could for him; for it he could not get the money for his insurance he could not pay his uncle the 300l. he had lent him. The nephew lived in the uncle’s house, but it did not appear in evidence that he was seen in the neighbourood of the fire at its outbreak, although on the alarm being raised he was immediately on the spot dressed. At the close of the evidence the magistrates retired to a private room, and after nearly an hour’s consultation returned, when the Chariman, addressing the prisoner, said they considered the evidence fully warranted them in committing them both for trial at the ensuing assizes. Mr. Isaacson trusted that the bench would liberate the elder prisoner on bail. He was a highly respectable man, as the crowded court could testify. The CHAIRMAN replied that the charge was of so grave a character as to prevent the bench complying with the application. He was aware of the respectability of the elder prisoner, but justice made no difference in the conditions of men. The prisoners were then conveyed to the county gaol at Cambridge. The amount of bail tendered was upwards of 5,000l. The assizes commence next week. The Times, July 13, 1846; pg. 5; Issure 19287; col F Unfortunately, the trial was not reported in The Times. Perhaps the Cambridge Chronicle might have followed the story to its conclusion. Margaret -----Original Message----- From: Tim & Julie webb [mailto:sohamgen@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 2:06 AM To: ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [ENG-CAMB] SOHAM 1841 CENSUS ON LINE Hi Margaret, Yes it would be of great interest to us, and thanks for taking the time to contact us. With Best Wishes Julie Webb, Soham Roots. >From: "Margaret Paxton" <mlpaxton@rmci.net> >Reply-To: ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com >To: ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [ENG-CAMB] SOHAM 1841 CENSUS ON LINE >Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:15:11 -0600 > > >Dear Tim and Julie, > > I recently searched the online archives of The Times of London and >found >several stories about Soham going back to the 1800s. Just now I found a >report of a fire in 1846 which destroyed 13 houses. Quite a number of >indviduals and their businesses are mentioned. Would this be of interest >to >you? > >Regards, >Margaret >mlpaxton@rmci.net >. > > > >==== ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE Mailing List ==== >. > _________________________________________________________________ It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger ==== ENG-CAMBRIDGESHIRE Mailing List ==== .