The 1879 Gloucester Directory lists the Army & Navy at Springfields.
The licence of the Army and Navy was refused on 25th August 1883.
I am most grateful to Steve Maidment for providing these comprehensive notes.
ARMY AND NAVY INN, LONGLEVENS
The Gloucester Journal newspaper of 29 July 1882 reported from Gloucester County Court; “R Chapman v H O Hopton. – The plaintiff is a brewer of Dursley, and the defendant is the landlord of the Army and Navy Inn, Longlevens. This was a claim for £11 17s for beer delivered, and a counterclaim of £10 for loss of trade by reason of bad beer was put in. Mr C Taynton appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Green for the defendant. – Mr Hancock, brewer to the plaintiff, stated that he had been in his employ 17 years. Beer had been delivered to the defendant at the rate of 1s per gallon. The beer was good, and the price was an ordinary price. In answer to Mr Green, the witness admitted that complaints had been made from the houses they served of the quality of their beer. The defendant had complained, but he could have returned the beer. – The defendant said that he took over the house in September, with a verbal agreement that the plaintiff should supply all beer and ale. With the exception of one barrel the beer was very thick, like treacle. He made complaints to the plaintiff. The beer was worth about 6d a gallon. His customers had fallen off and he reckoned that he had lost £60. On June 24th, his wife having bought the property, he changed his brewer, and though he only paid 1s per gallon for the beer – the same as before – his trade had since increased. – William Holloway said he left off going to defendant’s house because the beer was bad. It was so bad that they threw one quart into the road. – Several witnesses gave similar evidence, some stating that the beer was not so good as harvest beer. – Mr Briggs, who is the plaintiff’s traveller, and who previous to defendant kept the Army and Navy Inn, and his housekeeper, Mrs Selina Compton, stated that during the time he (Mr Briggs) kept the house there were very few complaints, but when the beer was sent back some fresh beer was sent. – His Honour, in delivering judgement, said that the plaintiff’s original claim was for £12 11a from which was deducted 14s, price of 14 gallons of beer returned. A sum of 12s for taxes he should further deduct, together with 25s for inferior beer. This would reduce the sum to £10 and he gave judgement for plaintiff for that amount”.
The Citizen newspaper of 21 June 1883 reported; “Local Liquidation. – Petitions have been filed in the Gloucester County Court by Henry Oakey Hopton, of the Army and Navy Inn, Longlevens …”
The Citizen newspaper of 14 July 1883 reported; “Local Failures. – … A meeting of the creditors of Henry Oakey Hopton, of the Army and Navy Inn, Longlevens, near Gloucester, was held at the offices of Mr Alfred Henderson, 9 Berkeley Street, on Thursday last, when resolutions were passed for liquidating the estate by arrangement”.
The Citizen newspaper of 29 September 1883 reported from the Gloucester County Licensing Sessions; “The Army and Navy, Longlevens. – Mr A C Champney said he was instructed by a man named Hopton to make an application with reference to the Army and Navy Inn, Longlevens. He understood that their worships had already dealt with the case at the annual licensing day. Since then Hopton had obtained a respectable tenant, who would satisfy any bench of magistrates as being a fit person to hold a license, and he (Mr Champney) asked the Bench to reconsider their refusal to renew the license. He had testimonials proving Hopton’s tenant to be of good character. Mr C Taynton opposed the application. Their worships would remember that the inhabitants of the houses in the neighbourhood of this house petitioned the Bench against the renewal of the license, and after hearing the evidence of several witnesses they decided not to renew the license on the ground, most clearly shown, that the license was not desired by those in the neighbourhood, and was not of any use to the holder. If Mr Champney had been aware of these facts he (Mr Taynton) did not think he would have advised the present application. The Bench refused Mr Champney’s application”.
The Citizen newspaper of 24 October 1883 reported from Gloucester County Court; “An Interpleader Case. Harriet Hopton v F W Thomas. – Mr H Morton-York appeared for Mrs Hopton, who is the wife of Mr H O Hopton, who formerly was landlord of the Army and Navy Inn, Longlevens, and Mr Metcalfe, barrister, instructed by Messrs Haines and Green, represented Mr Thomas, who was a creditor of Mr Hopton. Mr Thomas had issued an execution upon certain goods, which it was contended belonged to Mr Hopton, and Mrs Hopton now appeared to defend these goods, alleging that they were bought by her out of her separate estate. … The case was adjourned, on the application of Mr Morton-York, for the production of witnesses and Mrs Hopton’s bank book”.
The Gloucester Journal newspaper of 27 October 1883 reported from Gloucester County Court; “An Interpleader Action. Harriet Hopton v F W Thomas. … Mr Morton-York, in opening his case, stated that Mrs Hopton appeared at the last court to proceed with her claim, and that then his Honour advised her to consult a solicitor, and the case was adjourned for the production of a settlement. … Mrs Hopton had been left a certain amount of money under the will of her father, Mr Henry Read, of Bishop’s Cleeve, and the will stated that the money was to be for her sole use, independent of her husband, and was not to be liable for his debts or liabilities. The money, he was instructed, was lodged by her in a bank at Cheltenham. In 1881, two or three years afterwards, her husband, Henry Oakey Hopton, took possession of the Army and Navy Inn, Longlevens. Mrs Hopton then withdrew a portion of her money out of the bank and purchased certain articles from Mr Briggs, the outgoing tenant, and he gave her a receipt which read, ‘17th October, 1881, received from Mrs Hopton £58 12s 6d’. This receipt clearly established the fact that those articles, part of which were claimed in that action, were the property of Mrs Hopton, or at any rate were so at that time. After that, Mrs Hopton and her husband appeared to have consulted Mr Green, who then, he (Mr Morton-York) presumed for the purpose of making assurance doubly sure, prepare a post-nuptial settlement, which was dated July 15th, 1882, of which he (Mr Green) constituted himself as the trustee. That settlement was registered as a bill of sale, and Mr Green at the time advertised himself as the trustee. He also stated to Mrs Hopton that if at any time attacks were made on the articles mentioned in the settlement he would protect her interest, which was no doubt a very proper thing to say. A certain time elapsed and actions were brought against Mr Hopton, who was gradually getting into insolvent circumstances. In 1883 he filed a petition for liquidation, but the proceedings dropped through. Then his creditors, who were of course unbound by the proceedings, began to take action to recover their respective claims against him. Some of the claims, were, he (Mr Morton-York) thought, settled by Mr Green. He would pass over the other claims and deal with the last interpleader claim. He must mention that claim – if but to show the reason why it was not fought and why the present interpleader action was contested. It appeared that summons was issued by a Mr Smart who obtained judgement by default and issued an execution. Mrs Hopton then attended, so he was instructed, at Mr Greens office and told him what had happened. He told her that she was not to appear, or possibly there was no necessity to appear, on the interpleader, and she did not do so. The consequence was that judgement went against her. … She remembered Mr Smart issuing a summons against her husband and the bailiffs being put in the house. … She received a ninth of her father’s property, and her share amounted to £900. With that amount she had invested £325, had paid away between £300 and £400 for her husband’s debts, had lived on the capital, and had something under £50 remaining. … Both Mr and Mrs Hopton assured him that the whole of the goods at the Army and Navy Inn belonged to her (Mrs Hopton for her sole use. …”. [She lost the case and the property was included as part of her husband’s estate].
The Citizen newspaper of 29 April 1895 reported; “Enquirer – The license of the Army and Navy Inn, Longlevens, was refused on the 25th August, 1883. There is no record of the existence of such an inn as the ‘Red, White and Blue’, in the city or county licensing books commencing 1872”.
The ‘Red, White and Blue’ may have been a nickname as it appears in several instances in local newspapers over the years.
The Citizen newspaper of 10 November 1948 reported that ‘the older people [of Longlevens] … recalled the days when there were two inns in Longleavens Lane – the Globe and the Red, White and Blue”.
Henry Oakey Hopton was born in 1842 at Churchdown, son of William and Mary Hopton. In 1851 the family were living at Ashchurch where William was a farmer of 100 acres. Henry O married Harriet Read at St Michaels, Bishops Cleeve, in 1867, and by 1871 they too were farming at Hucclecote. By 1891 the family were living at Sugar Loaf, Churchdown, with Henry employed as an agricultural labourer. He died in 1897.
In 1881 Henry G Briggs, a draper originally from London, was living with his family at 6 College Court, Gloucester. His wife Emma was born at Dursley, their three children were all born at Cam, and this may have been the connection for them to source the beer from there. Henry George Briggs had married Emma Godwin at Dursley in 1856.
Landlords:
1879 – Romans
