Brother Edmund was a member of Ignatius' youth wing, the Order of St. William, in 1864/5 and later spoke against him at the London lectures in 1868 - though soon begged contrition from his godfather...
George Edmund Mills was born in 1849/1850 to Harriet (née Page, b. 1815) and James (b. 1818) Mills, Norwich born and bred pattern dyers who had married on May 22nd 1836 at St. Peter Mancroft. On the 1841 census James and Harriet were living at Moses Smiths Yard, St Martin at Oak, with their two oldest children, Harriet Sarah (b. 24/07/1836) and Richard Joshua (b. 08/12/1839).
By the time of the 1851 census the family had moved to Church Alley, St Michaels Coslany. In addition to Harriet and Richard - both listed as scholars - the Mills children now included Ebenezer (b. 1846), Priscilla (b. 1848), George Edmund, and James (b. 1851). The family also had a house servant, Sarah Smith (b. 1832).
Their youngest child, Sally, was born in 1855 - the same year that Harriet Junior married Robert Henry Payne on December 19th.
The Mills fortunes were not destined to run smoothly however, and in August 1859 George's father, James, committed suicide. Below is a snip from the Norfolk Chronicle of August 13th:
Similarly, the East Suffolk Mercury and Lowestoft Weekly News of 13th August 1859 reported:
Norwich Suicide - On Friday an inquest was held on the body of Mr. James Mills, foreman to Mr. Gedge, Dyer, St. Miles, before Mr. Wilde, coroner, at the Pheasant Cook Inn. Richard Mills, deceased's son, stated that deceased was in bed in his own house shortly before 9 o'clock that morning. At twenty minutes to 9, Mrs. Mills told him the time, and a few minutes after that, on going to see whether he was going to work, she found that he had hanged himself. She called out, and witness went upstairs directly and cut the handkerchief by which deceased was hanging from a beam in the roof of his bed-room. Mr. Francis, surgeon, was called in directly, and when he saw and examined the body he pronounced deceased to be dead. Deceased had been in bed all the previous day, and appeared to be in a very low state. He had been low-spirited for the last two or three months, as though he had something heavy on his mind. The jury found "That the deceased hanged himself while in state of temporary insanity."
Richard, then working as a merchants clerk, married Agnes Murray (b. 1840) on Christmas Day 1860.
That left five children living at home on the 1861 census, which listed them at Tubby Yard, Tooley Street, St Mary Coslany. Ebenezer was working as a brick maker, Priscilla as a silk weaver, and George as a bag maker, while the two youngest were still at school.
At this time George was said to be a regular attendee at St. Michael's Coslany church and the Sunday School run by its rector, the Rev. Richard Rigg (1806 - 1886). Then at some point in 1864, George was taken on as an apprentice. I haven't found any mention of who or what trade, but his master was described as "giving him clothes, education, and 5s. 6d. per week."
Regardless, George disliked the situation and began spending more and more time at the monastery. On the Feast of St. Edmund, November 20th 1864, George was baptised by the Rev. Hillyard at St. Lawrence's, with Ignatius serving as his godfather.
The youth wing of Ignatius' movement, the Order of St. William, was formally established in late January 1865. I'm not sure if George was one of the initial brethren, but he certainly ran away from his situation around this point and was sent by Ignatius to one of the Order's support houses in Brighton. He stayed there for some weeks, as evidenced by Ignatius' assertion he gave George's mother 4s. 6d. per week in relief for the duration.
In April Harriet tried going to the press, leading the Norfolk News of April 22nd 1865 to print an article entitled:
Alleged Abduction by the Monks.
Mrs. Harriett Mills, of Hull's-yard, St. Mary's, has called at our office to complain that through the influence of Ignatius she has lost all control over a son, who had hitherto been an industrious and obedient lad. Her statement is that she is a poor widow, with seven children, of whom she had five at home. Her son George (who is now designated Brother Edmund O.S.B.) is a lad of 13 years of age, and until recently, was in good service, his master giving him clothes, education, and 5s. 6d. per week, a very acceptable help in the maintenance of the family.
He had been a regular attendant at St. Michael's Coslany Church, and had attended Mr. Riggs Sunday-school, but had been drawn away to the Monastery. She did not at first object to his going there occasionally, but has all along steadily refused to consent to his joining the monks, though told that if she did not he would most likely do worse. At length he neglected his work and lost his situation, spent whole nights at the monastery, and in the end was taken away to Brighton.
He has since returned to the Monastery, at Norwich, but notwithstanding the efforts of herself and of a lady who has kindly interested herself in the case, he refuses to leave. When she called upon him, Ignatius hung round him and kissed him and said, "If you go, you shall not be long before you come back again don't fear." The circumstances have weighed greatly upon her mind, and caused her to fret so much that she has not been well from the time she thus lost her son. Her son told her that he dare not leave, or if he did, he should be cursed, and one boy had been cursed and sank and died.
We give thus much of the statement of the mother. We have received letters from the lad himself and from "Ignatius," both of which assert that the lad is at perfect liberty to leave, if he chooses, but that he is determined to stop. Evidently the mother's power over the boy is gone.
As ever, Ignatius wasted no time in picking up his pen and dashing off a response. This letter was duly printed in the April 29th 1865 edition of the Norfolk News.
ALLEGED ABDUCTION BY THE MONKS.
To the Editor of the Norfolk News.
SIR- I have read in your last impression an article with the above heading. Your regard for truth and fairness will allow me space for a word in self-defence for my work's-sake. I do then assure you most emphatically, that all your information is either utterly untrue or a gross misrepresentation of facts. Why people take such intense delight in persecuting me and telling lies regarding me I cannot tell. I interfere with none, and I wish that people would be good enough to leave me alone also. The false statements in your paragraph are: -
1st. That Mrs. Harriet Mills complains that through my influence she has lost all control over her son, who was once an industrious and obedient lad.
This I utterly deny, for Mrs. Mills herself distinctly told us that she was never agreeable to her son holding the situation he had, and she expressed herself as quite satisfied at his leaving it. Before attending the monastery he had been a very bad wicked boy, he cared for nothing but pleasure and sin. As to being industrious he desires to be so now, but in his last place he had little or nothing to do.
2nd. It is stated that Mrs. Mills is a poor widow with seven children, of whom she has five at home.
Now, sir, this is a gross misrepresentation, just to excite people against me. Two of her children are married, her eldest son is a respectable well to do person, whom we have spoken with on several occasions. As to the woman herself, my regard for the boy will prevent my animadverting upon the character she bears.
3rd. It is said that the boy was a regular attendant at St. Michael's Church and schools.
This would insinuate that the boy was well and religiously brought up. This is most entirely the reverse of the truth. What the boy would gladly say himself concerning the depths of sin into which he had fallen, through the force of bad example, would prove the wicked misrepresentation here made.
4th. He had been drawn away to the monastery.
This, so far from being the case, is the opposite of the truth. His conduct was so bad at the boy's services that I forbad the porter to let him enter the Convent again. On my return from my missionary tour, I found that the boy had quite changed, and attended the vespers daily at the Monastery with devotion and reverence. After a time, as I invariably do in such cases, I had two or three conversations with him. In spite of his regularity at St. Michael's Church and schools we found that he was unbaptized. Very soon he expressed an anxious desire for baptism. He was baptized on the Feast of St. Edmund last year, at St. Lawrence Church, and with his mother's consent joined our Third Order as Brother Edmund.
5th. That he neglected his work and lost his situation.
This is utterly untrue, for he ran away from his situation, and wrote to his mother telling her that he did so on account of the gross sin and immorality by which he was there surrounded, and that he could bear it no longer. It is untrue to say that he spent whole nights in the Monastery. None but monks are allowed on any pretence to sleep in the Monastery. He slept as do many of the St. William's boys in the eastern-most wing of the building which is set apart for them, and into which no one but the monk appointed to take charge of the boys is allowed to enter.
6th. In the end he was taken away to Brighton.
This too is false; he went by himself, as he was frightened extremely at the violence he would have to suffer from his mother and other relations. I had nothing to do with his going, nor did I know of the arrangements made for his going. He had no money from me for the purpose, nor from the monks. When he was away his mother came here furious at first, saying she would "tear him to pieces," when she did get hold of him. Other similar affectionate remarks were made by others of his "friends." That he has since returned to the Monastery is perfectly true, and he is here now. The doors are open; he very often has the keys himself; and he can go and his mother come whenever they please. The boy says he is absolutely determined not to go back to the dangers and evil influences by which he has all life been surrounded. He will only leave the Convent if dragged out by maine force, and will then watch his first opportunity to return.
Now, sir, one word about the "kind lady." I know nothing of her and have had no intercourse with her. I only know what Brother Stanislaus and Brother Edmund have told me respecting her. The former is the monk who had an interview with the person in question. On Wednesday afternoon, when I and the monks were assembled in the chapter-room for a solemn religious service, after the customary afternoon prayers in the chapel, we were very much annoyed and disturbed by violent ringing at the front gate, hammerings at the back gate, ringing of the cloister bell. It is against the rule for any monk to move from his place during the service in the chapter-room. Chapter accordingly went on, in spite of the noisy and incessant interruptions.
In an hour and a half chapter concluded. As the procession left the chapter-room, chanting the accustomed chant, viz.-"The lot is fallen unto me in a fair ground," &c., Brother Edmund came running up to me in his secular clothes, crying and very much excited, saying, "Oh father, that Protestant lady has been here making such a noise, and they got me out; but I'm safe in again, and I won't go out any more; don't let me see any of them again." I took him through the cloister into my room and made him tell me what had happened. He says that hearing a great deal of ringing at the bell he went to the front gate, and on looking through the iron grating he saw his mother, sister, and the Protestant lady in question, with a crowd of the common people round the gate. The mother on seeing her son through the grating made some not very kind remark as to what would happen if she were inside the grate instead of outside.
The disturbance going on, the lad became rather alarmed, as they threatened to break in the door if it was not opened. The boy who accompanied the "kind lady" said he would see the Superior. Brother Edmund said it was impossible, and so it was, for I was at chapter, and I would not leave chapter for any one. The boy outside then spoke very insolently, so I was teld, and declared that he would see me, or it should be the worse for me! The poor boy evidently thought that Superiors of Convents are at the beck and call of any one who wishes to annoy them, boys included. However, Brother Edmund, innocently thinking that their threats might be carried into effect, said to hem that if they would not annoy the Superior he would get the keys and give himself up to them. This he accordingly did, trusting to their promise.
The "kind lady" and her attendants led the boy to a shoemaker's shop and asked to be allowed to go into a private room where she might speak to him, owing to the crowd of people outside. When they had the boy safe upstairs the boy with the "kind lady" said he would then go and "settle" with the Superior. Brother Edmund, on hearing this, felt that it was a breach of faith, and instantly declared he should return to the Convent, as the obiect for which he had left it had failed by the breach of the promise made to him. He accordingly broke away from them and ran to the Monastery and was soon safe inside its gate again, one of the St. Wiliam's boys being at the gate. He then, as I said before, found us returning from chapter. The "kind lady," the "rude boy," and Mrs Harriet Mills had followed him in.
Brother Edmund entreated to be kept out of their fight; he seemed quite alarmed at the "kind lady," though she kindly ofered to do all sorts of things for him if he would only leave the monks. She pictured to him his poor widowed mother going to the work-house, &c., &c. The boy however, I believe, told her that as she was so kindly disposed towards him, that as he did not need her assistance, she might do something for his mother.
He is quite willing to leave his mother to God's, his elder brother's, and the kind lady's care, for he feels that Jesus has called him to a life of entire holiness and devotion to His service. If the case were reversed, and they were Catholics trying to get a boy out of a Protestant Institution, the "kind lady" would be an impudent interfering bigot, and the poor widowed mother a very emissary of the evil one trying to draw her son away from Protestant light and truth, those who tried to protect the boy and keep him in the Protestant Institution would be accounted perfectly right in trying to shield the boy from the persecutions of the fanatic Papists whose errors he had so manfully renounced. Your readers must know that this would be the case. When the boy was running back to the Monastery the crowd laughed and cried out, "See, he will be a monk; they can't keep him away."
I must now notice another point in your account. The hanging round the boy and kissing him when the "lady" called upon him. This is a mistake, as, I did not see the boy; when the "lady" called I was in chapter. On a former occasion, when the boy's mother and uncle called to take him away from the monastery at the request of his then master, the boy was in a state of almost frenzy from worry and grief; his clothes were all taken from his drawer in the St. Willinm's Dormitory. The boy was not to come here again, at all events to live. He told us that he could not bear sleeping at home, after having so long had the privilege of living in St. William's rooms. He had, he said, to sleep with two of his brothers, and he could not say his prayers nor read of a night before going to bed, as he was made such game of. In St. William's room every boy has his own bed, separated from the rest by white curtains. All the inmates of the room are expected to maintain perfect silence, and to perform their proper evening devotions, each boy having a prayer book, hymn book and testament.
It was on this occasion, when the poor boy was thus being taken away from us, to be surrounded by the very worst temptations, all of which he acquainted us with, that I said to him, not, "If you go you shall not be long before you come back again, don't fear," but "Trust in God, dear boy; He will bring all things right in the end." He then before his mother and uncle knelt down for me to bless him, which I did, and afterwards I kissed him as affectionately as I could, and sent him away crying. No sooner was he outside the gate than his relations began swearing at him and abusing him. Here I may as well say, for the gratification of your readers, that my kissing Brother Edmund is nothing extraordinary. I kiss him and all my children, even the grown-up monks, and some of the little ones among the girls. What is more, I intend always doing so. I think it best to disclose it. Horribile dictu! Sometimes we might be found kissing one another's feet.
The boys, on coming into the room where I am, invariably kneel down and kiss my dress; this is one of their rules. Besides all this, we look upon "a kiss" as a religious ceremony, and kiss holy pictures, figures, and books. We never touch the bible without kissing it first. Before we read the Gospel we always kiss the first word. In our most solemn services we kiss one another, e.g., immediately after the consecration of the Host. We "greet one another with an holy kiss," the priest first in front of the altar giving the holy kiss to me.
We also, though with very great difficulty, teach children to kiss their fathers and mothers. On one occasion when I told a boy to kiss his mother he was perfectly astonished, and said, "Why, father! me kiss my mother, really I can't. I never did such a thing." "Very well, then, I said, "I shall never kiss you again unless you do." He immediately put his arm round her neck and kissed her. Here I may say, in passing, that it has been most painful for me notice how destitute of natural affection the boys and girls of Norwich are, and the consequence is that in I may say most cases they are most fearfully depraved. From their earliest days they seem inured to impurity and vice.
Lastly. It is stated that the "poor widow" has never been well since she thus lost her son. All I can say is that she told us that she was perfectly satisfied for her son to be here, as long as he did not actually become a monk, but that it was others that urged her on, and were continually annoying her about the boy being here. I must also state that when her son left Norwich for Brighton, and as long as he was at Brighton, we relieved Mrs. Mills by giving her the 4s. Gd. weekly which her son used to supply her with. On his return to the Convent I refused to continue this relief, as I am not prepared to pay so much a-week for novices. And besides this, the "kind lady" will, I am sure, assist Mrs. Mills, as she seems to be very well off.
We are doing for Brother Edmund all that lies in our power, and that is sufficient. We hope to do so as long as he chooses to stay in the Monastery. He can however go whenever he pleases, and unless it is God's grace that keeps him here and binds him to us, the strictness of the rule, the monotony of our daily life, the silence, continual employment, the long night services, the fasting, &c., will soon tire him, and visions of the "kind lady" in the outer world, making a gentleman of him, will draw him into the world again, and very likely to his old sins. I write thus much about this boy because I hope this will be my last letter respecting the abduction of young people, and I do not wish to take notice of future falsehoods and misrepresentations which may be made by my enemies on other and similar eccasions. Nothing is done in the Monastery that I am in the very least ashamed of, and by God's blessings there never will be.
I am sure that Brother Edmund is ready to be catechized by any one respecting his determination to remain here. At the same time I think it is preposterous to deprive us of our privacy and liberty in the way in which our persecutors try to do.
Believe me, dear Sir, yours faithfully and obliged,
† IGNATIUS, O.S.B., Superior.
This dispute was still ongoing a month later. The Norwich Mercury of May 20th 1865 reported:
The police were summoned to the vicinity of the building known as the Monastery, at Elm Hill, at about half-past eight o'clock on Tuesday evening, one ofthe residents in the building, known as Brother "Stanislaus," having sent a lad, who stated that a crowd of persons were congregated outside making a disturbance. On the arrival of the constables they were informed by Mr. Ellingham, of Elm Hill, that a Mrs. Mills had been to the Monastery demanding her son, and that "Father Ignatius" did not wish to keep the boy, nor did he wish him to loiter about the place. Mrs. Mills had left the spot before the constables came up.
Presumably this back and fore continued for some time, perhaps even throughout the 'excommunication' of Ignatius by Maurus and Stanislaus, and Ignatius' subsequent illness when the monastery was left in the care of Brother Placidus.
What is certain is that by the time Stanislaus joined forces with the Rev. James Ormiston and the Protestant Society in late December 1867, George was back home - but still writing regularly to Ignatius. The Morning Advertiser of January 28th 1868 reported on a widely advertised public meeting held at Hanover Square Rooms "on the subject of ritualistic practices in the Church of England, and the establishment of monastic institations in various parts of the kingdom." This was the beginning of a particularly vicious campaign to stamp out Ritualism in the Church of England, and from the very start former Brothers of Ignatius' Anglican Order of St. Benedict were rewarded handsomely for choosing to speak out against their one time Superior.
Of George specifically, the paper recorded:
George Mills, a youth of seventeen, was called forward, and answered questions put to him by the chairman. He said he was formerly an inmate of the Benedictine Monastery at Norwich, and was known as "Brother Edmund," of "the Order of St. William." The members of the order were certainly not the most virtuous, pious, or elevated persons in the world. He never had any idea of such badness until he heard the horrible questions which were put to him in confession. He underwent penance on various occasions. He had to lie prostrate three or four hours with his arms and legs extended, and to lick the dust off the floor in the form of a cross.
A gentleman in the room said: Are you prepared to state what that was for?
Mills said that would be going too far. How he got into the monastory was in this way: He attended the chapel services as other lads did, and Ignatius, having noticed him, asked him if he would blow the bellows. Afterwards Ignatius and the Rev. Gideon Ouseley got him up stairs, and persuaded him to enter the monastery, much against the wish of his mother (his father being dead). His mother, after the lapse of some time, managed to get him out. Ignatius was away at the time, and the brother who had charge of the monastery during his absence was in bed drunk. The inmates had great diffculty in communicating with their parents and others. They could only see them through a sort of cage, and in the presence of some official of the monastery.
The Chairman: Was there a course of proceeding there too disgraceful to tell a public assembly, and too horrible to contemplate?
Mills: Yes, there was.
On February 15th 1868 the Morning Advertiser published an account of another anti-ritual meeting that had taken place at Hanover Square Rooms the evening before. On George it said:
Mr. Mills, another youth, stated that he had also been an inmate of the Norwich monastery, and had run away two or three times, on one occasion being excommunicated by Brother Stanislaus. He had travelled with Ignatius, and was always compelled to eat his food on the ground like a cat or a dog. He had had to kiss the feet of all the brethren, and one poor fellow, because he had not kissed his (Mr. Mills) feet, was compelled to lie on the floor and kiss them all the time he was having tea. Whenever they met a monk or nun they were obliged to kneel down and kiss the hem of their garments. He had also licked the dust from the floor in the shape of a cross. Children had been admitted without their parents' consent. He concluded by bearing testimony to the truth of Mr. Hughes's statement.
Francis Lyne - Ignatius' father - was outraged enough to write into the Morning Advetiser, his letter being duly published on February 18th 1868. Of George he wrote:
As respects "Mr." Mills, I have abundant proof before me that he is amongst the most ungrateful of young men; and by his own confession, he has yielded to Mr. Ormiston, to pleate a lady in Norwich, who is "kind to his mother;" and this said lady has been in the habit of sending to me tracts in support of her zeal. So much for Mr. Ormiston's witnesses.
The same issue printed a letter written by Ignatius to the Rev. J. Ormiston on February 3rd, from his new Laleham Priory, because another of Ormiston's witnesses - John Meadows - had told him he was paid a sovereign for attending the meeting. Ignatius claimed:
As to your witnesses against us last Monday, Mills, Meadows, and Nobbs, they were made to say what they did, evidently. Who put the improper questions to Mills but Hughes himself, and he wes never told to do so. He said it was necessary, and when I told him I could not frame my lips to ask such things, he said that every one of the boys and young men were guilty of all he accused them of and required to be warned against such sins.
...
As to Mills, he is my godson, and the week before his name appeared in the papere be wrote me some very strong and indignant letters against Hughes, saying how he wished he oould come to London and expose him; that he was thoroughly bad, and stated that be could prove all the things which he said against the monastery were untrue; therefore I fancy you must have got hold of a lad that assumed Mills' name. I could show you piles of this youth's letters to prove what he really feels with respect to myself and "the holy life" led by us in the convent.
(Ignatius' father noted: I have seen a letter from this youth [Mills] to my son lately, dated since the meeting, acknowledging his gratitude for my son's kindness, and admitting that interested motives on his mother's acoount, and that to please a lady who bad been kind to bis mother he had attended the meeting.)
In a letter printed in the February 21st edition of the Morning Advertiser, Ignatius repeated his claim that Mills, along with other youths, had been bribed to attend the London lectures. Later, on April 2nd, the Morning Advertiser published another missive from Ingatius, including a copy of a letter from George:
Before concluding, allow me to enclose the words which another of Mr. Ormiston's hired younger dupes, who spoke against us at the Hanover-square Rooms, has just written to me:-
NORWICH.
MY DEAR GODFATHER, - I am very happy to think I have permission foom you to write again to you, whom I truly love and respect. I am, indeed, very sorry that I ever attended any meeting against you and the Holy Catholic Faith. I only hope you will accept this (apology), and forgive and pray for me always. I have just answered Mr. Harper's letter, telling him that I shall not attend the meeting on Friday.
I hope you will believe me when I say I am deeply, truly penitent for going to these meetings, and I am sure I have not been well since, thinkiog of you; it has made me quite miserable and ill. I only wish I was able to come up and speak to you myself, and tell you how sorry I am.
I had almost accepted the money (from the Protestants), merely just to come and hear you preach in London, but then if I did I knew I must attend the meeting; so I would not do that even for the pleasure of seeing you again. Will you put the question to the Chapter when you meet next week, whether they would let me be admitted amongat them again, beosase I believe I should be kept a great deai better from sin if I were in the Order. Hoping you are quite well,
Believe me your true and affectionate godson,
George E. Mills
The May 9th edition of the Morning Advertiser referred to an even more recent letter to Ignatius from George, reaffirming his commitment to the Order.
We have now before us a letter, dated so late as Tuesday last, addressed to Father Ignatius from "Brother Edmund," alias Mills, one of the young men lately "exhibited" at the London Tavern as a model Protostant, newly converted from Popery, with "Brother Stanislaus," a quondam monk in the Norwich monastery of Father Ignatius. In this letter, which we do not publish, because we do not wish to renew the correspondence which lately appeared in our paper on the subject, this youthful and very hopeful convert to Popery - for we know not how many times - professes the most profound penitence for ever having had anything to do with the Protestant meeting, or with the Rev. Mr. Ormiston, or Mr. E Harper - eulogises "Father Ignatius" in the highest terms - implores his pardon for ever having said a word or done a thing against him - and solemnly declares that his (Mr. Lyne's) forgiveness and friendship can alone make him happy.
Probably unrelated to George specifically, but the only other newspaper mention I found for the Mills family that year was a report from the Norfolk News of July 11th that George's brother, Ebenezer, had been sentenced to seven days' imprisonment for being drunk and disorderly.
"[Before J. G. Johnson, W. J. Utten-Browne, J. Betts, A. Towler, R. W. Blake, T. Brightwell, and J. M. Venning, Esqs.] Ebenezer Mills, brushmaker, St. Mary's, was in custody on the charge of being drunk and disorderly and using obscene language in the above-named parish, about one o'clock On Thursday morning. Police- constable Doughty having proved the case, the defendant was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment, and at the expiration of that time, should he demur to pay the costs, 7s. 8d., he will be subjected to a further incarceration of seven days."
By the time of the 1871 census George was a boarder at Somerleyton Street, Heigham. The head of the household was Jane Knights (b. 1825) and there was also a visitor listed, Ellen Cutting (b. 1856).
On September 7th 1884 George, then working as a clerk, married Caroline "Carrie" Hannah Chilvers (b. 1855) at Holy Trinity Church in Heigham. The ceremony was performed by the Rev. F. W. Cogswell.
The local newspapers - including the Norfolk News of 20th September 1884 - carried a wedding notice for the couple.
From at least 1887, according to the Norwich electoral register, the couple were living at 39 Greenhills Road.
Their first son, Reginald George Mills, was born on December 20th 1890 and baptised on (March 15th 1891.) The 1891 census found the family still living at 39 Greenhills Road, Norwich.
On December 14th 1892 another son, Percival Charles Mills, was born. Percival was baptised on February 5th 1893.
The electoral registers reveal they moved around a lot over the next few years. In 1895 they were at 46 Guernsey Road - as recorded on Reginalds' October 1896 school admission and Percival's admission to St. Augustine's Infant School in 1897. In 1899 they moved from Branford Road to 111 Spencer Street. In 1900 they were living at 51 Botolph Street, and then 57 Calvert Street in 1901.
The 1901 census listed the family - George, Caroline, Reginald and Percival - at Church House in Norwich. George was working as a crape overlooker. In 1902 the electoral register placed them at St. Clement's Alley. Percy's 1907 admission to Quayside Evening School listed him at Church House on Colgate Street.
By the time of the 1911 census George was working as a warehouseman and living at 45 Pitt Street with Caroline and their youngest son, Percival, who was working as a shop assistant.
Percival was still living at home with his parents on the 1921 census.
George died in January 1935.
