Victorian Botcherby – and a load of old rubbish!

Botcherby has been part of Carlisle for just over 100 years. It’s not an area I know, really. It seems it gets its name from a Flemish man called Bochard (the Norman version of his name) who was around in the time of William Rufus. (William II, who had Carlisle Castle built in 1092). Monsieur Bochard’s name/memory also ‘live on’ elsewhere in the city, in ‘Botchergate’.

Being currently in the process of (trying to) migrate this website from HostGator to NameHero, this week’s post is a short one and basically one anecdote that caught my eye.

It seems the people of Victorian Botcherby were not all civic-minded. And that some would only behave if asked very nicely!

No coercion at Victorian Botcherby

July 30, 1897

Upperby Parish Council.

The monthly meeting of the parish council for St Cuthbert’s Without was held in the schoolroom at Upperby last night. The Rev H Lonsdale presided and there were also present Mr Mitchell, Mr Jackson Pears, Mr Batey (Carleton), Mr Joseph Beaty (Carleton Hill), Mr Nutsford (Botcherby), Mr Graham, Mr Clark, Mr Gill, Mr McCready, and the acting clerk, Mr Thwaite.

…Mr Nutsford called attention to the noticeboard which had been put up on the Warwick Road plot of ground which stated that persons depositing rubbish &c on it would be prosecuted. Since the notice was put up, several of the inhabitants of Botcherby had regularly deposited their rubbish there (laughter), in fact, there was more rubbish thrown on the ground now that there was before the notice was put up.

He had received a letter during the week from an inhabitant, stating that the people of Botcherby did not like the words ‘will be prosecuted’; they would much prefer the more polite phrase ‘are respectfully requested not to deposit rubbish here’. If the alteration was made, probably less rubbish would be tipped there (laughter).

Mr McCready moved that the notice remained as it was. Parish council has little enough power and to alter it meant the sacrifice of some power. Mr Mitchell doubted whether they had the power to prosecute and moved the notice be altered.

Mr Mitchell’s notice was carried.