1822. January 24th. The anniversary of the birthday of the Rt. Hon. C. J. Fox was commemorated by a public dinner of the liberal party at the Assembly Rooms.
February 24th. At a quarterly meeting of the corporation it was unanimously resolved, that a piece of plate, of the value of 150 guineas, be presented to Charles Harvey, Esq., the recorder of Norwich, as a testimony of the high appreciation entertained by that assembly of his upright and impartial conduct in the performance of the duties of his office, and of his zeal on all occasions for the interests of the city.
March. When the elections came on in Cleansing Week, there was no opposition for the Conisford and Mancroft wards, and the orange-and-purple party maintained their ascendancy. Wymer ward, Mr. J. Reynolds 401, Mr. A. A. H. Beckwith 401, Mr. J. Culley 401, (nominees); P. Greenwood 56, W. Simmons 56, R. Widdows 54. Northern ward, Mr. A. Shaw 379, Mr. S. S. Beare 368, Mr. E. Taylor 200, (nominees); W. G. Edwards 189, A. Beloe 193, T. Grimmer 190, St. Quintin 190.
May 1st. The election of mayor came on. At the close of the poll the numbers were for Alderman Hawkes 957, Alderman J. S. Patteson 908, Alderman Thurtell 364, Alderman Yallop 318; the former two were returned to the court of aldermen, who elected Robert Hawkes, Esq., to serve the office of chief magistrate.
June 18th. This being Guild day, Robert Hawkes, Esq., was sworn in as mayor, and he gave a grand dinner to the citizens in St. Andrew’s Hall.
September 27th. The weavers, 2,361 in number, subscribed for, and presented a piece of plate to John Harvey, Esq., as a testimony of the high esteem in which they held him; and he deserved it, for he was a great promoter of the manufactures of the city, and a friend of the operatives. They were then in a prosperous state, and well employed by many large firms who executed orders for the East India Company to the extent of 20,000 pieces of camlets yearly. This trade continued till 1832.
1823. January 23rd. At a meeting held in the Old Library Room, St. Andrew’s Hall, a society was formed for supplying the poor with blankets at a reduced price; and upwards of 1100 were distributed during the winter.
February 24th. At a quarterly assembly of the corporation a lease was granted to the magistrates of the city, for 500 years, of the piece of land outside of St. Giles’ Gates, on which it had been decided to build the new jail, at the annual rent of £50.
March 4th. At a meeting held at the Guildhall, petitions to parliament were adopted against the Insolvent Debtors Act.
March. Cleansing Week for the ward elections passed off without any opposition; the orange-and-purple party kept the Conisford, Mancroft, and Wymer wards, and the blue-and-white the Northern ward.
April 14th. At a special assembly of the corporation, a petition to His Majesty was adopted, praying for two jail deliveries in the course of the year.
April 25th. At a meeting held at the Guildhall, to take into consideration the state of the West India Colonies, with a view to promote the abolition of slavery, resolutions in favour of the object were carried.
May 1st. The election of mayor took place, and at the close of the poll the numbers were, Alderman J. S. Patteson 835, Alderman Francis 774, Alderman Leman 101, Alderman Yallop 94. The two former were returned to the court of aldermen, who elected J. S. Patteson, Esq., to serve the office of chief magistrate.
May 3rd. At a quarterly assembly of the corporation, the freedom of the city was voted to the Hon. John Wodehouse, lieutenant of the city and county.
June 17th. This being Guild day, J. S. Patteson, Esq., was sworn in mayor; and he gave a splendid dinner to a large party in St. Andrew’s Hall.
1824. In September of this year the first Norfolk and Norwich Musical Festival was held in St. Andrew’s Hall, and the concerts given were well attended by the nobility and gentry of the county. This Festival was very much promoted by Mr. Edward Taylor, Mr. R. M. Bacon, then editor of the Mercury, and other amateurs in the city, and proved eminently successful, the hospital receiving the sum of £2,399 out of the profits. In 1825, King George IV. presented the hospital with a copy of Arnold’s edition of Handel’s Works. It was determined that a triennial festival should be held in aid of the funds of the institution, and that the Norwich Choral Society should be maintained in an efficient state for that purpose.
About this time a very important movement took place in the city, with the view to make “Norwich a port,” and many meetings were held to promote that object. Here, therefore, will be a proper place to review the proceedings in reference to our navigation to Yarmouth and Lowestoft. The history will show the grasping selfishness of the old corporation at Yarmouth, which always tried to tax the trade of the city, and opposed every improvement, even when it was for the benefit of both towns.
Norwich, no doubt, derived its mercantile and carrying trade from its original situation as a sea-port. In ancient times the Gariensis Ostium, or mouth of the Yare, extended in breadth from Burgh Castle to Caister, the two Roman camps being opposite each other. The spot on which Yarmouth now stands was then covered by water, and a broad arm of the sea extended all over the present marshes to the city, which was then a sea-port, before Yarmouth had any existence. This appears from the legal contests that took place in later times between the burgesses of Yarmouth and the citizens of Norwich.
Norwich had long been a mercantile and trading town, and one of the royal cities of England, and ships came up by an arm of the sea to an open market, which was held every day in the week. Public marts or fairs were held twice a year, with all manner of merchandise for sale to citizens, strangers, or foreigners. The traders for centuries used this right of buying and selling, loading and unloading all their goods and merchandise, free of all tolls and dues. Foreign merchants paid at Norwich 4d. on every ship of bulk, 2d. for every boat, and all other customs for their merchandise.
At the commencement of the 14th century Yarmouth began to be a rival port to Norwich, and some legal contests took place between the two towns respecting their rights and privileges. In 1327, a suit was commenced, and in 1331 it was renewed, between the citizens of Norwich and the burgesses of Yarmouth, relating to certain tolls which the latter imposed on goods, claiming the right to do so under the charter of Edward I., which made Yarmouth a port. Indeed, they appear to have been so incensed at the city becoming a staple that they proceeded so far as to stop all vessels coming through from their port to Norwich. A very remarkable contest consequently arose, and terminated in favour of the city. The result of the suit was, that the bailiffs of Yarmouth were commanded to make proclamation in their town, “That if any hindered or in any way molested the merchant vessels of what kind soever from passing and re-passing through the port of Yarmouth, to and from the city of Norwich, they should forfeit all their goods and chattels, forfeitable, for so doing.” Yarmouth was, therefore, prevented for a time from levying duties, but subsequently regained the power of doing so to a great extent.
If Norwich in former ages was an important seaport, the question naturally arises how it ceased to be so. There is sufficient evidence that after the year 500, the arm of the sea became narrower, though at that period the water came up close to the Castle Hill. After 1050, the river was much reduced in breadth, and a new town arose round the fortress. Centuries elapsed and the river became still narrower, and streets were extended on each side. At length the stream became so shallow that it was no longer navigable for sea-borne vessels, and the ancient trade of the city began to decline. The citizens, occupied by political contests, did not keep up the navigation for sea-borne vessels, as they might easily have done. Attempts were made in this (19th) century to retrieve the long neglect of former ages by some schemes of improvement, but these attempts almost entirely failed. Still the city owed many trading advantages to its river, which is navigable for wherries and packets to the sea.
The navigation between Norwich and Yarmouth has not been, for centuries, suited for sea-borne vessels, owing, chiefly, to the shallowness of the channel over Breydon. The embouchure of the river into the sea has been frequently blocked up by shifting sands, and vessels have been detained fourteen days before they could get into the river. Indeed, at the present time there is great danger of the mouth of the harbour being blocked up at Yarmouth altogether.
Prior to the year 1762, the quantity of coals brought from Yarmouth to Norwich, annually, was 26,000 chaldrons. Of these, nearly 5000 chaldrons were carried out of Norwich into the surrounding district, so that 21,000 chaldrons were consumed in the city. At that time, the king’s dues and the Yarmouth dues amounted to 8s. 1d. per chaldron, which was felt by the consumers to be a grievous tax. A cheap and plentiful supply of coal has always been of the utmost importance to the citizens, not only for domestic purposes, but also as fuel for manufacturers, dyers, hot pressers, lime burners, brewers, and maltsters. Yet, at the period referred to, this necessary commodity was heavily taxed, to the extent of £1200 yearly, more than was paid on an equal consumption in London. This tax was rendered more grievous by the illegal measurement at Yarmouth. The legal chaldron consisted of thirty-six bushels; but, at Yarmouth the chaldron was estimated not by bushels, but by a measure called a mett, sixteen of which were computed to contain a chaldron, but did not. As may be supposed, the injustice naturally caused considerable dissatisfaction among the Norwich coal merchants and other citizens, and frequent complaints were made of the grievance which was ultimately abolished. This was important, for formerly, from the north of England, immense quantities of coal and heavy goods were brought by sea, viâ Yarmouth to Norwich, for distribution over the eastern side of Norfolk and Suffolk. The importation of coal, by this route, has, however, been greatly diminished; not only by the opening of railways in every direction, but also by the working of the central coal fields of England.
By the act of the 12th George I., c. 15, commonly called the Tonnage Act, the corporation obtained the power to levy tolls on all goods brought into the city by any boat, keel wherry, lighter, buoy, or other vessel as follows:—4d. for every chaldron of coals, for every last of wheat, rye, barley, malt, or other grain, for every weight of salt, for every hogshead of sugar, tobacco, molasses, or hogshead packed with other goods, for every three puncheons of liquor, for every two pipes of wine, spirits, &c., for every eight barrels of soap, raisins, oil, pitch, tar, &c. For five years prior to May, 1836, the average amount of revenue derived from the tonnage dues was £970, showing that a very large quantity of goods was brought by river to the city. After June 24th, 1836, the tolls were let by auction for £1375; in 1838, for £1210; in 1840, for £1220; in 1847, for £1000; in 1850, for £1050 yearly. This shows that after the opening of railways the dues were reduced, but not so much as might have been expected; the wherries continued to bring in a large proportion of the heavy goods.
The project of opening a communication between Norwich and the sea, for sea-borne vessels, originated with Alderman Crisp Brown, who in 1814, submitted to the corporation a plan for making Norwich a port by way of Yarmouth. After this, surveys were made, and a report was published in 1818, by Mr. Cubitt, who recommended avoiding Breydon by a new cut on the south side. In the same year he made another survey, to ascertain the practicability of opening a communication with the sea at Lowestoft, and in 1821 this report was laid before the public. As the Yarmouth corporation had signified their determination to oppose either of these plans, it was at length determined to carry out the communication to Lowestoft, although the expense was double that of the Yarmouth plan. This turned out to be a very unfortunate undertaking. Subscriptions were raised and fresh surveys were made; and in 1826, a company having been formed, an application was made to Parliament for an Act; but being opposed by the Yarmouth corporation and timid owners of the marsh lands, who were fearful of an inundation, it was lost by a majority of five. This act, however, was finally passed in 1827, after £8000 had been spent by the corporation of Yarmouth in opposing it. Of course, the object of that body was to retain the monopoly of the Norwich trade, which was then very great.
On May 23rd, 1827, the bill for making Norwich a port having been passed through both houses of Parliament, the navigation committee, with the mayor (their chairman), were met at Hartford Hill, on their return from London, by thousands of their fellow-citizens who were assembled to welcome them; and a grand procession having been formed, they marched through the city, while guns were fired in all directions. The celebration concluded with a bonfire at night.
In effecting the great undertaking of a communication with Lowestoft, the river Yare was deepened near Norwich and the navigation was continued by that river as far as Reedham, whence it was carried across the marshes by a new cut, two miles and a-half long, to the river Waveney, along which it passed to Oulton Dyke, which was widened and deepened to Oulton Broad, whence by a short cut the canal entered Lake Lothing, through which it passed to the shore at Lowestoft, where, by cutting through the bank, the tides were freely admitted into the lake. Here a large harbour was formed, covering 160 acres, nearly three miles in length, and averaging from fifteen to seventeen feet in depth at high water. In this work the company spent their whole capital of £150,000.
On September 30th, 1833, the Norwich and Lowestoft navigation was opened, when two vessels came from the latter place and arrived at the wharfs without once touching ground. This caused great rejoicing, and the advantages of the undertaking were soon apparent. But the company wanted money, and were obliged to borrow it from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, into whose hands the port fell in 1842. Norwich traders might afterwards have recovered possession of the port for a small sum by a combined effort, but they lost the opportunity. The commissioners disposed of the port and navigation to a new company at Lowestoft, and that company, after expending large sums in repairs, sold the harbour and navigation to Mr. Peto for almost a nominal price. He, with other gentlemen, organised another company, raised a capital of £200,000 (afterwards doubled), and obtained an act of parliament for the formation of a new harbour, and a railway to Reedham in connection with the line to Norwich. The new harbour was made, and the railway was opened in 1847, from which year the carrying trade of the port gradually increased. Before 1850 the importation of coal and the harbour dues increased five-fold, and the importations of corn increased 10,000 quarters yearly. The number of vessels was doubled, and of course employment increased in proportion. The harbour and railway contributed a large traffic to the Eastern Counties lines. Norwich traders made great use of the port, and through it brought quantities of coal and heavy goods to the city. There is every mechanical facility afforded for the loading and unloading of vessels; and port dues are lower than at Yarmouth. In 1851, the number of vessels that entered the harbour was 1,636, or 131,767 tons, showing an increase of 23,000 tons. In the same year there was an increase of 6,997 tons in the coal imported. Of course, as the shipping trade of the port increased, the railway traffic increased also. One of the chief sources from which the additional revenue was derived was from the fish traffic; for in 1851 the packages were 78,000 in number, and produced a freight of £3,739. The traffic also in coal and goods has greatly improved.
Between 1840 and 1850 the corporation of Norwich, aided by the city merchants, made a most determined effort to improve the navigation to Yarmouth. A large subscription was raised for this purpose, and Mr. Cockburn Curtiss, the engineer, was engaged to make a survey of the river Yare, and to prepare plans. He did so, and his plans were approved by the citizens generally; but the corporation of Yarmouth gave notice of a strong opposition. Application was made to parliament for a bill giving the corporation here jurisdiction over the river down to the mouth of the Haven. The bill was opposed and lost, and the Norwich corporation were defeated after an expenditure of some thousands of pounds.
We resume our chronological list of the leading events of the century:—
1825. January 5th. At a public meeting held at the Guildhall, a Mechanics’ Institution was established, and it was continued for some years in the rooms above the Bazaar, St. Andrew’s.
March. Cleansing week passed off without opposition for the second time.
April 7th. The clergy of the archdeaconry of Norwich agreed to petition in favour of the claims of the Catholics to have the same political rights and privileges as other people.
April 18th. At a public meeting, held in St. Andrew’s Hall, a petition for a revision of the Corn Laws was adopted unanimously. The petition afterwards received 14,385 signatures, and was forwarded on the 26th to be presented to parliament. As yet it was not proposed to repeal the Corn Laws, which were then a monstrous injustice.
May 1st. The election for mayor took place, and the numbers were for Alderman Day, 679; Alderman Booth, 597; Alderman Leman, 152; Alderman Burt, 150. Thomas Starling Day, Esq., was elected.
May 3rd. The corporation adopted a petition against the Catholic claims, the members going quite out of their way to perpetuate a great wrong.
May 31st. The anniversary of the birthday of the Rt. Hon. William Pitt was celebrated by the members of the castle corporation.
June 11th. The first stone of the new theatre was laid, and it was erected on the present site. The building is only a piece of patch-work, and has no pretensions to architectural design. It is no credit to the city in any respect. It was opened on March 27th, in the following year.
June 21st. The mayor (T. S. Day, Esq.,) was sworn into office; he afterwards gave a dinner to upwards of 460 gentlemen in St. Andrew’s Hall.
August 30th. A contest took place for freemen’s sheriff; at the close of the poll the numbers were for Mr. Brookes, 865; Alderman Springfield, 501. The former was returned.
September 1st. The corporation presented a piece of plate, of the value of 100 guineas, to William Simpson, Esq., chamberlain, in testimony of their high esteem for the ability and integrity displayed in the discharge of his official duties; and of their unanimous approbation of his long and faithful services.
November 2nd. Sir Thomas P. Hankin, Lieut. Colonel of His Majesty regiment of Royal North British Dragoons, was interred in the Cathedral with military honours.
November 21st. At a public meeting, held in St. Andrews Hall, a Society was formed for promoting the Abolition of Colonial Slavery. The late J. J. Gurney and all his family were great advocates of negro emancipation, but the diabolical injustice of slavery continued for many years to be the disgrace of England. At many meetings held in this city, the late J. J. Gurney denounced the atrocities of the slave trade, and advocated its abolition. This object was at last accomplished after a violent agitation throughout the country, at a cost of twenty millions sterling!
1826. January. This year, in consequence of the iniquitous corn laws, bread was dear, work was scarce, and the poor were destitute. Nearly £5000 was subscribed for their relief.
March. Cleansing Week ward elections passed off without opposition, except in the Wymer ward, where it was merely nominal.
May 1st. The election of mayor took place. Messrs. Booth and Patteson were returned to the court of aldermen without opposition, and Mr. E. T. Booth was elected.
May 30th. The anniversary of Mr. William Pitt’s birthday was again celebrated by the members of the castle corporation. The dinners of this and other clubs served to keep alive party spirit.
June 20th. This being Guild day, E. T. Booth, Esq., was sworn into the office of chief magistrate; after which, the Rt. Hon. Robert Peel, secretary of state for the Home department, and Jonathan Peel, Esq., the new member of parliament for the city, were admitted to the freedom of the city.
August 29th. A contest took place for the office of freemen’s sheriff. At the close of the poll the numbers were for Mr. James Bennett, 1164; Mr. Alderman Springfield, 1079. The former was returned.
November. Parish meetings were held in many parts of the city, and votes of thanks were passed to Crisp Brown, Esq., for his strenuous exertions in preventing impositions in paying public money for the new jail, then considered a job.
November 21st. William Simpson, Esq., was elected town clerk and clerk of the peace for this city, in the room of the late Elisha De Hague, Esq., who died on the 11th inst., at the age of 72.
December 6th. Robert Alderson, Esq., was unanimously elected recorder of the city, on the resignation of Charles Savill Onley, Esq., and on the 12th, Isaac Preston, Esq., was elected steward of the corporation, vacant by the resignation of Mr. Alderson.
1827. January 7th. On the intelligence being received here of the death of his late Royal Highness, Duke of York and Albany, the bells of the different churches were tolled for some time, and the shops were partially closed on the following days.
January 20th. This being the day appointed for the funeral of his late Royal Highness the Duke of York, the melancholy occasion was observed by a general suspension of business; the corporation attended divine service at the Cathedral, and the bells of the parish churches were tolled.
January 26th. At a meeting of the clergy, a petition was adopted in favour of the Catholic claims.
April. Cleansing Week ward elections came on with several severe contests. Conisford ward, J. Marshall, 213; T. Edwards, 212; J. Kitton, 205 (nominees); J. Angell, 204; A. B. Beevor, 203; J. P. Cocksedge, 202. Mancroft ward, no opposition, J. Goodwin, T. Eaton, C. Hardy (nominees). Wymer ward, W. Foster, 435; J. S. Parkinson, 434; G. Kitton, 429 (nominees). Northern ward, S. S. Beare, 424; R. Shaw, 415; H. Martineau, 420 (nominees); G. Coleby, 237; T. Grimmer, 244.
May 1st. The election of mayor took place; at the close of the poll the numbers were, Alderman Finch, 918; Alderman Yallop, 867; Alderman Patteson, 566; Alderman Browne, 565. Peter Finch, Esq., was elected. He lived for many years in a large house built of flint in St. Mary’s.
June 19th. This being Guild day, Peter Finch, Esq., was sworn into the office of chief magistrate.
August 28th. The election for freemen’s sheriff came on; at the close of the poll the numbers were for Mr. Alderman Springfield, 1210; Mr. F. White, 474. The former was returned.
September 12th. There was a severe contest for the office of alderman of Conisford ward in the room of the late William Herring, Esq., who died on the 8th, aged 74. At the close of the poll the numbers were for J. Angell, 218; J. Marshall, 196; and the former was returned. A scrutiny was demanded by Mr. Marshall’s friends, but was afterwards abandoned.
This month Mr. Myher Levi, a Jew, and his wife Hannah Levi, a Jewess, having been converted, were baptised in the parish church of St. Stephen’s, and received the name of Herbert.
1828. January 10th. The members of the castle corporation celebrated their sixty-third anniversary.
March. Cleansing Week elections. Conisford ward, J. Marshall, 240; T. Edwards, 240; A. B. Beevor, 239, (nominees); J. Skipper, 225; S. W. Mealing, 226; R. Merry, 225. No opposition in the other wards, but for Mancroft ward, J. Bennett, A. Beloe, and C. Hardy (nominees); and for the Northern ward, S. S. Beare, R. Shaw, and H. Martineau (nominees).
May 1st. A contest for mayor, which lasted two days; at the close of the poll the numbers were for Alderman Yallop, 1212; Alderman Thurtell, 1210; Alderman Angell, 1097; Alderman Patteson, 1020. The two former were returned to the court of aldermen, who elected T. Thurtell, Esq.
May 5th. At a public meeting held at the Guildhall, resolutions were passed and a petition to parliament was adopted for the immediate alleviation and ultimate extinction of slavery in the West India colonies. The petition afterwards received the signatures of 10,125 persons, and was 150 feet in length.
June 12th. The anniversary of the birthday of the late Rt. Hon. William Pitt was commemorated by a dinner of the Tories at the Assembly Rooms. About 160 gentlemen were present.
In August, the new Exchange Street was opened, and on October 11th, a new Corn Hall was opened to the public.
1829. January and February. Petitions were adopted against the claims of the Roman Catholics by the Brunswick Constitutional Club, and other inhabitants of this city; but counter declarations from the clergy of the diocese of Norwich, and from a “Society of the friends of civil and religious liberty,” were agreed to. The agitation on this vexed question had now reached its height in the country.
February 17th. Even the common council now agreed to present an address to the king for the removal of Roman Catholic disabilities.
March. Cleansing Week ward elections came on. Conisford ward, J. Marshall, 258; T. Edwards, 259; J. Youngs, 253, (nominees); J. Skipper, 83; S. W. Mealing, 84; R. Merry, 82. Mancroft ward, no opposition, J. Bennett, A. Beloe, and C. Hardy (nominees). Wymer ward, W. Foster, 466; G. Kitton, 464; A. Barnard, 464 (nominees); J. Culley, 397; J. Brookes, 396; E. Newton, 394. Northern ward, S. S. Beare, 342; R. Shaw, 343; H. Martineau, 341 (nominees); T. Grimmer, 63; E. Hinde, 64; W. Fromow, 64.
May 1st. T. O. Springfield, Esq., and John Angell, Esq., were returned to the court of aldermen for the office of mayor without opposition, and the former was chosen mayor.
June 16th. This being Guild day, T. O. Springfield, Esq., was sworn into the office of chief magistrate; after which he gave a grand dinner to upwards of 800 ladies and gentlemen in St. Andrew’s Hall.
July 15th. A public dinner was given to Thomas Thurtell, Esq., at the Norfolk Hotel, attended by 80 gentlemen, in testimony of their approval of his honourable, impartial, and upright conduct in the performance of his duties as mayor during the previous year.
1830. January. Great disturbances took place in the city in consequence of differences between the manufacturers and weavers concerning wages. On the 12th, between 3000 and 4000 weavers collected in the avenues to the workhouse, where they greatly interrupted the business of the court of guardians, but they were dispersed by the magistrates and patroles. Munificent donations of £200 from Hudson Gurney, Esq., and £400 from London were distributed amongst the distressed weavers in bread and coal, under the direction of a committee. A general subscription was afterwards raised in the city, amounting to £2300, for the relief of the poor.
March. Cleansing Week ward elections. Conisford ward, T. Edwards, 251; J. Youngs, 251; W. G. Edwards, 249 (nominees); J. Skipper, 233; S. W. Mealing, 232; R. Merry, 228. Mancroft ward, J. Bennett, 195; H. Newton, 196; B. Boardman, 196 (nominees); W. Burt, jun., 50; W. J. Robberds, 50; P. Nicholls, 50. Wymer ward, J. Culley, 521; J. Winter, 520; J. Bexfield, 516 (nominees); W. Foster, 376; G. Kitton, 374; A. Barnard, 374. Northern ward, T. Grimmer, 292; E. Browne, 290; W. Fromow, 289 (nominees); H. Martineau, 278; R. Shaw, 276; W. Newson, 276.
March 29th. On the evening of the Conisford ward election, the gates leading to the workhouse were pulled down and destroyed, and considerable injury was done to the offices adjoining, by a great concourse of persons riotously assembled, and who were returning from a procession formed by the defeated party.
May 1st. John Angell, Esq., was elected to serve the office of mayor.
May 3rd. The common council adopted a petition to the lord chancellor for two general jail deliveries in the year. This was subsequently granted.
December 23rd. At a special meeting of the council, Isaac Preston, Esq., (afterwards Jermy) was elected recorder of the city in place of R. Alderson, Esq., who had resigned.
1831. January 12th. At a meeting held in the Old Library Room, St. Andrews Hall, a petition to parliament was adopted, praying for the entire abolition of slavery in the British colonies.
February 1st. At a special assembly of the corporation, Fitzroy Kelly, Esq., was unanimously elected steward of that body, and he held that office till the passing of the Municipal Reform Act.
March 22nd. A petition was sent from the city against the disfranchisement of the freemen by the proposed Reform Bill. The signatures were limited to freemen, denizens, and apprentices.
March. Cleansing Week ward elections. Conisford ward, J. Skipper, 270; R. Merry, 265; B. Bunting, 237, (nominees); T. Edwards, 169; J. Youngs, 167; W. G. Edwards, 167. Mancroft ward, no opposition, J. Bennett, H. Newton, and B. Boardman (nominees). Wymer ward, no opposition, J. Culley, J. Winter, W. J. U. Browne (nominees). Northern ward, S. S. Beare, 344; R. Shaw, 337; W. Enfield, 347 (nominees); T. Grimmer, 222; E. Browne, 220; W. Fromow, 220.
This year the Lent assizes were held in Norwich by adjournment from Thetford.
May 1st. J. H. Yallop, Esq., was elected mayor for the second time, and he gave a grand dinner in St. Andrew’s Hall.
In this month a census of the population was taken, showing 27,910 males, 33,437 females; total 61,347. Inhabited houses, 13,283; uninhabited houses, 1,082; total 14,365.
June 20th. Samuel Bignold, Esq., was elected an alderman without opposition in the room of John Patteson, Esq., who had resigned.
August 22nd. The new act of the court of guardians received the royal assent, and came into operation. This act has since been superseded by another.
September 12th. The election of guardians took place under the new act.
1832. January 11th. At a court of mayoralty it was resolved to present a memorial to the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor, praying that Norwich might be included in the ensuing circuit of the judges. A committee was appointed to prepare the memorial. A special court was convened on the 14th to receive the report, and a memorial was adopted which was presented by the members for the city. The petition was granted, and the council passed a vote of thanks to the Lord Chancellor.
April. Cleansing Week for ward elections. Conisford ward, J. Skipper, 266; R. Merry, 264; B. Bunting, 266 (nominees); T. Edwards, 157; J. Youngs, 159; R. Mills, 157. Mancroft ward, no opposition, J. Bennett, B. Boardman, and H. Newton (nominees). Wymer ward, J. Culley, 489; J. Winter, 484; W. J. U. Browne, 485 (nominees); W. Foster, 388; A. Barnard, 383; T. Edwards, 382. Northern ward, S. S. Beare, 380; R. Shaw, 371; W. Enfield, 381 (nominees); T. Grimmer, 101; E. Browne, 109; H. Steel, 107.
May 1st. The election of mayor took place without opposition. Mr. Alderman Stevenson, and Mr. Alderman Bignold were nominated, and they were duly returned; the aldermen chose S. W. Stevenson, Esq., then proprietor and editor of the Norfolk Chronicle. After being sworn in on the Guild day he gave a grand dinner to about 900 ladies and gentlemen in St. Andrew’s Hall.
August 28th. The election for freemen’s sheriff was severely contested. At the close of the poll the numbers were for William Foster, Esq., 1282; Mr. Alderman Steward, 1275; and after a scrutiny the former was declared duly elected. This was a triumph for the blue-and-white party.
September 3rd. An election took place for an alderman of Mancroft ward in the place of J. S. Patteson, Esq., deceased. Charles Turner, Esq., was elected; F. Morse, Esq., being the other candidate.
November 11th. This day, at all the churches in the city, thanksgiving services were performed for the cessation of the cholera, and for the mild manner in which the inhabitants had been afflicted as compared with other places. The Norwich Lying-in Charity for delivering poor married women at their own homes was established, and it has been of great benefit to the poor.
1833. January. The town clerk of this city received a circular from the secretary of state, requesting to be informed of the mode of electing members of the corporation. The town clerk forwarded his answer on the 21st.
March. Cleansing Week for ward elections. Conisford ward, no contest, J. Skipper, R. Merry, and B. Bunting (nominees). Mancroft ward, no opposition, J. Bennett, B. Boardman, H. Newton (nominees). Wymer ward, J. Culley, 486; J. Winter, 484; W. J. U. Browne, 486 (nominees); G. Kitton, 122; R. Miller, 122; C. W. Unthank, 121. Northern ward, S. S. Beare, 300; R. Shaw, 298; W. Enfield, 300 (nominees); T. Grimmer, 206; H. Steel, 204; J. Sinclair, 203.
May 1st. At the election for mayor, Aldermen Bignold and Turner were returned to the court without opposition, and S. Bignold, Esq., was chosen to serve the office. On the Guild day he was sworn in, and on this occasion he gave a magnificent banquet to about 1100 ladies and gentlemen in St. Andrew’s Hall. The same place was the scene of great festivity on June 20th and 21st, when dinners were given to the electors in the orange-and-purple interest, those in the Conisford and Northern wards to the number of 750 on the first day, and those of the Wymer and Mancroft wards 912 on the following day. Great was the rejoicing, but it was of short duration. The days of the old corporation were numbered.
William IV. ascended the throne in 1830, in a period of great political excitement. During his short reign of seven years, there was the greatest political agitation ever known in this country about a Reform of Parliament, a measure which the people had long and earnestly desired. Many meetings were held in this city, and petitions were adopted in favour of reform, long called for and long deferred. In fact, the king, during the early part of his reign, had other and more pressing causes of anxiety. His accession to the throne brought him an inheritance of the jealousy, to which the country had been gradually roused, on the subject of the extravagance and corruption of the old systems of government. In the effort to reduce a vast expenditure, the House of Commons was in no mood to be so liberal to the new sovereign as he thought he had a right to expect. The ministry were withheld, by the very forcible opposition of one of its members, from asking the house to grant the expenses of the queen’s outfit, and the king himself had to submit to the mortification of finding the pensions charged on the public by former monarchs sharply criticised, and even his own household expenses commented on with severity.
On September 8th, 1831, the grand ceremony of the coronation of the king took place in Westminster Abbey. The auspicious event was celebrated in Norwich in a most loyal and joyous manner. The festivities of the day commenced with the merry chime of St. Peter’s bells, and the waving of banners from all the public buildings. The mayor and members of the corporation went in procession from the Guildhall to the Cathedral. After their return to the hall, the regiment of the First Royals marched into the Market Place and fired three vollies. The electors who had supported Gurney and Grant received £1 each, and a dinner was given to 600 of the freemen, who voted for Wetherell and Sadler, at Laccohee’s gardens. The citizens, in fact, have never lost an opportunity of displaying their loyalty, but they always expected something in return. Several petitions were sent from Norwich in favour of the Reform Bill; and the passing of the bill was celebrated here with great rejoicings, festivities, and a public procession on July 5th, 1832. This brief reign was remarkable, moreover, for the abolition of the slave trade after a violent agitation which convulsed the whole country, and ended in the passing of an act of emancipation of the slaves in the West Indies, at a cost of twenty millions; and it is also noted for the suppression of the rebellion in Canada, and the restoration of tranquillity to that colony.
An Act of Parliament received the royal assent on June 23rd, 1832, removing the assizes from Thetford to Norwich; and the corporation passed a vote of thanks to John Stracey, Esq., for his exertions in obtaining that measure, and also a vote of thanks to the lord chancellor for having granted two jail deliveries in the year. Since then the city assizes have been held at the Guildhall, and the Norfolk assizes at the Shirehall. The city sessions are held every quarter at the Guildhall, and the petty sessions daily at the same place.
The reformed House of Commons having presented an address to His Majesty, praying for the appointment of a commission to inquire as to the existing state of municipal corporations in England and Wales; the king, on July 18th, 1833, complied with the address, by issuing a commission; and notice was subsequently given to the mayor of this city, S. Bignold, Esq. (now Sir Samuel Bignold), of the intention of the commissioners appointed to investigate the affairs of the Norwich corporation, in compliance with a request from a meeting of 300 citizens, held on the 13th of May preceding. A special meeting of the corporation was at once convened to consider the course to be pursued, and the assembly determined on a reluctant submission to the inquiry, so far as regarded the production, by the corporate officers, of all “charters, books, deeds, accounts, papers, and muniments of title,” but at the same time protested against the commission as illegal and unconstitutional, and against the right of the commissioners to make any inquiry whatsoever. As may be supposed, the dominant party in the city did not like it, and the sheriffs especially protested against it. They declined to attend at the proposed enquiry, or to recognize the authority of the commissioners by any act, and addressed a letter to that effect to the commissioners, signing their names, W. J. Utten Browne, and Edward Steward, sheriffs of Norwich. Of course the commissioners were not very pleased at this ostentatious opposition to their authority, and in the course of their enquiry showed an evident hostility to the predominant party. Witnesses were allowed to make statements reflecting on the characters of the living and the dead, and every facility was afforded for the gratification of political, perhaps of private, revenge. This will appear in the following summary of the evidence, taken from the Digest, published soon afterwards.
This inquiry was conducted by George Long and John Buckle, Esqs., and commenced on November 25th, 1833, at the Guildhall. Nearly all the officials of the corporation were examined, and many influential gentlemen. Some strange statements were made as to the effects of party spirit, and the enemies of the old corporation alleged, amongst their favourite charges, that the magistrates were biassed by party spirit, and that the funds of the corporation had been devoted to electioneering purposes. Evidence, however, was given to the contrary.
J. J. Gurney, Esq., said, “I believe that there are many most laborious and useful magistrates in the city, and no persons would be so fit as many of those who have already been accustomed to the business. I do not find the slightest fault with the application of the magisterial power. It is my most decided opinion that the magisterial authority has been impartially exercised.”
W. Simpson, Esq., said, “Whatever money may have been spent, it certainly has not been the money of the corporation.”
Alderman Bolingbroke said, “I have been an alderman near twenty years; I do not know of any corrupt application of the corporate funds to elections or any other purposes. I do not think any misapplication of the corporate funds could have taken place without my knowing it.”
As the inquiry proceeded, however, evidence was given of the influence of party spirit in the distribution of patronage, appointments, and employments, and also in admissions to freedom. It was proved that the police were very inefficient, and often refused to act in cases of riot, and when the mob were pulling down polling booths. As to the expenditure of money at local elections,
The Mayor, S. Bignold, Esq., said, “I am quite sure that if respectable persons were to offer themselves at local elections, it would repress the excesses which sometimes take place. The local elections are attended with considerable expense. I am not aware that the aldermen interfere in these elections. I am not aware of anything which would prevent the aldermen interfering in the promotion of sheriffs. They consider the oath as debarring in the one case and not in the other. Committees are formed on the occasion of elections in the different wards. I cannot say whether the aldermen are frequently members of those committees. I have not had any opportunity of witnessing unfair exertions. I cannot say whether any subscriptions are made on those occasions. I have never subscribed a shilling. I cannot say whether notes are given by the aldermen or others. I never saw such a note as the one produced before. I have heard of notes purporting to get certain persons into the hospitals, being given by aldermen on the occasions of municipal elections. I have never seen any such notes. My knowledge of them has arisen in this way. I have been asked myself and told that A and B have given them, but never fulfilled their promise.”
“Question. Do you think that the mode in which the local elections are carried on tends to keep out respectable and intelligent persons from filling the various offices?
Answer. I am sorry to say that those respectable and intelligent persons have contributed to the system.
Q. Has that been the case generally?
A. I should say, generally, with the leading persons in this city on both sides, connected and unconnected with the corporation.
Q. Have the members of the court of aldermen contributed to your knowledge?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Is it your belief that they have or have not?
A. I think they would not in the election of an alderman, but they might for sheriff or common councilmen.
Q. On what ground is that distinction made?
A. The aldermen consider that they are not to interfere in the election of their brethren, in consequence of the oath they have taken.
Q. The oath makes no distinction?
A. There is an impression to the contrary.
Q. If there had been an extraordinary excitement at elections, can you say that in no case that excitement was enlarged by the aldermen?
A. I should say in no case.
Q. What do you consider the intention of the aldermen in subscribing to the funds?
A. I can only answer that question in general terms, that the excitement has never been increased by any act of the aldermen.
Q. Are you acquainted with the case of Hornigolds with reference to the elections?
A. In no other way than by your drawing my attention to it. I know of no other note to that effect. No improper persons have been admitted into the hospitals on account of their votes.
Q. Have they in all cases been fit and proper persons?
A. Certainly they have.
Q. Do you think the same persons would have been introduced if they had not been political supporters?
A. Not identically the same persons.
Q. Are there instances where persons have been put in by the aldermen, who have not been political supporters?
A. Yes. I have put an individual in myself who was not a political supporter in any way.
Q. Are such instances rare or frequent?
A. I am only able to answer from information I have derived from my seniors; I should say they are frequent.
Q. Are the great majority of persons admitted freemen?
A. Yes. I think they are.
Q. Are the exceptions few?
A. I do not know.
Q. You said all the freemen introduced to the hospitals were fit and proper persons: have they been introduced as the political friends of the aldermen?
A. Yes. I should certainly introduce my political friends in preference.
Q. Do you consider the power of the aldermen to have been exercised bonâ fide, or for influence at the elections?
A. Certainly, bonâ fide.
Q. Do you think this privilege is frequently exercised in favor of political opponents?
A. No. There are twenty-four aldermen, and the patronage is about 15–24ths on the Tory side to 9–24ths on the Whig side.
Q. Is it your opinion that more urgent cases have been passed by, and others taken on account of political services?
A. I think not; I think very pressing cases have had the preference over political supporters.
Q. Is it, in your opinion, a justification if a person is put into the hospital under such a promise, or a more pressing case; and would the alderman exercising the power, do it under an impression that he was not guilty of any breach of duty, or of violating his moral feelings?
A. I think where an alderman had made such a promise, he would be perfectly justified in performing it, provided the person was a fit and proper object.
Q. The alderman, so promising, in the event of a more pressing case, would he change his turn?
A. It is done frequently for the express purpose in pressing cases; and those changes are made with political opponents.”
Alderman Newton examined, said, “I have no doubt there have been large sums of money expended at local elections. It has been a common thing to make subscriptions for local elections. Sometimes the subscriptions have far exceeded the necessary expenses. In some cases, but not generally, the subscriptions have been under the management of a committee. An individual mostly takes the management. He has the whole of the funds under his care, and is not accountable to anyone. The committee never interfere. It is left to one individual to manage the funds. The mode of distributing the money is known to members of the committees, who are generally members of the corporation. I do not know of aldermen being members of the committees. Aldermen have subscribed, but very rarely, at contested elections. A good deal of money has been expended on those occasions. The general supporters of the parties have been subscribers, including the common council, but not the aldermen. The scenes at elections have been very disgraceful sometimes. I recollect the election of Alderman Marshall. I have heard that the scene on that occasion was very disgraceful. I have heard that much money was spent, but I think £1000 would be the outside. I recollect the election of Alderman Steward. Money was spent on that occasion, but nothing like £1000. I remember the election of Mr. Steward for sheriff. I have heard that money was then spent. I heard that the Whig party gave a large sum for the last six votes that they polled, and I believe it to a certain extent. No doubt there was money spent by the Tory party to a large extent. I have heard that from £10 to £15 were given for a vote. There was a large subscription by members of the council, but not by the aldermen. I think Mr. Steward subscribed, but I do not know to what amount. On other occasions subscriptions have been made for the same office. Money was given to the freemen, but the far greater amount was spent in giving them beer and tobacco on either side. It has been carried to a greater extent by the Gurneys than by any other persons. I have no doubt that the money was given for bribery.”
J. J. Gurney, Esq.; stated that the assertion as to bribery by the Gurneys was utterly false as to him; that he had never given a farthing for the purpose of bribery; nor had the firm done so; nor had they any loans; nor had their clerks been employed for such a purpose; had the deepest impression of the sin, guilt, and misery, involved in our local elections; and he would rather have his arm cut off than promote them directly, or in any way whatsoever. Not only had there been bribery, but a system of demoralization to a fearful extent; but treating was the root of the mischief here. He believed the root of the evil was the election of the magistrates and corporate officers by popular means.
The commissioners asked, What mode of election do you consider would be preferable? and Mr. J. J. Gurney replied:—
“I think that the magistrates, being the representatives of the king, ought to be appointed by the executive government; I mean those officers connected with the government of the town. The parties here are evenly balanced, and it therefore becomes a close contest. Nothing gives us rest but the predominance of one party. We are at rest now solely owing to the predominance of the Tory party.”
A good deal of evidence was given of the great extent to which the system of cooping was carried on at elections. Voters had been frequently taken away by force a dozen miles, locked up in public houses and half-starved in them, and otherwise ill-treated. This system was carried on by both parties. The worst proceedings of this sort seem to have occurred at the elections of Alderman Angell and Alderman Springfield, when there was a vast amount of bribery, treating, and cooping.
Mr. William Wilde, afterwards coroner, gave evidence as to the election of Alderman Springfield, in November, 1821. He was one of the committee for conducting that election. Mr. Ives, a retired clergyman of the Church of England, was the other candidate. The Northern ward was then two to one in favour of Springfield. About 440 to 240 would have been a fair poll if no money had been given. When the vacancy occurred, Mr. Springfield was not in Norwich. Mr. Wilde continued, “I sent for him express, and when he returned we heard from good authority that great sums had been offered by Ives’s party first. We generally sent out freemen to see how markets were going. Springfield was returned, though it was generally reported that Ives’s party meant to buy the ward. But Springfield said he would not be bought out. We went then into a regular system of buying, they buying all the men of ours they could, and we buying all of theirs we could. About £10 was a regular price. We spent £600 or £700 in buying votes. On the morning of the election, Mr. Ives’s party commenced by giving two sovereigns each at the polling place. Mr. Springfield paid his men the same. In consequence more than 300 out of 430 who voted for Springfield took two sovereigns at the booths. Persons draw a distinction between money paid at the booths, and a bribe at any other place. Many who take money at the booths will not accept bribes in any other shape. Springfield’s election cost £1530. The money at the booths is openly given, and it is not considered a crime to take it. I think about 60 or 70 persons sold their votes at £10 apiece. Small shopkeepers are not a bit better than freemen. I have stood openly in the market to buy votes with money in my hand. This system is generally acted upon at all contested elections where the money can be found. Nothing but poverty of purse makes purity of election in Norwich. At Alderman Angell’s election the same system was followed. It is the same at ward elections. I have given £30 for a vote at an election for common council only for a year, but there are few instances of such a high price. I once gave the father of a nominee £20 for his vote. That sum is frequently given. I have known promissory notes given for votes. I do not recollect an instance of notes given by aldermen, but 1 have no doubt of the fact. The usual plan is for a person to say ‘My family wall not vote unless you give a turn at the hospital,’ and application is then made to an alderman. I think the effects of what I have been stating are most debasing and demoralising. I have known poor men who have for years withstood the temptations offered them at elections; and when once they have fallen into the snare, I have observed their conduct to alter, and they have been much changed. I am perfectly satisfied of the evil tendency of the course pursued hitherto, and in very few instances has the money given been any benefit to the freemen, but quite the contrary. The effect has been the same with both the giver and receiver of bribes. I should be sorry to bring up any of my children in the course which I have pursued.”
Commissioner Buckle then thanked Mr. Wilde for the very open and candid manner in which he had given his evidence.
Mr. John Rising Staff said that on Alderman Angell’s election, for two days and two nights previous the town was in a state of great disorder, occasioned by large parties of men employed by each party going about the streets molesting any persons whom they met of the opposite party, attacking freemen personally, and by improper intrusions into their dwelling houses or other places where they were supposed to be concealed. In some instances where they were in search for a voter, and could not find him at his own residence, they went into the residence of other persons, not in the ward where the election was to take place, to search for individuals. Witness gave several instances of cooping.
Alderman Bolingbroke also stated instances of cooping that came under his notice as a magistrate.
Mr. John Francis said, “I have been a manufacturer in Norwich many years, and I consider the acts of the corporation to have engendered every species of bribery and strife. Its patronage is invariably exercised in favour of political adherents. During the last ten years our commercial interests have materially suffered from it. It creates disunion between those gentlemen where friendship would otherwise exist. The local elections are pregnant with evil; they take men from their work, those who are not free as well as those who are free; and in case of a contest it is impossible to get any work done for six weeks after; and this in the spring time of the year when work is brisk and calls for close attendance. The consequence is that the masters suffer materially. I never engaged in bribery at elections, except at the late election for sheriff, when I bought a bunch of four in the market for £8; I also offered another man £5, but he wanted £10, which I thought too much. The numbers, however, were running close, and I went to buy him at that price, but I found that he had been settled for and voted. Therefore I saved £10.”
Mr. A. Barnard said, “At the election of Mr. Foster as sheriff, I bought about forty votes at from 30s. to £4 apiece. I know personally of no instances of bribery by an alderman. I have known instances of an alderman saying, ‘You may make use of my turn in the hospital to get a vote.’ I have known this five or six times. These promises were given by three aldermen. I decline to give their names. I have no objection to say they were Whigs. I have acted frequently as paymaster at elections. Aldermen have often subscribed for ward elections. Both parties are pretty much alike.”
George Palmer was examined very closely, and he stated that he had always voted in the Whig interest, and that he had received a note from Alderman Springfield for four shillings weekly till his brother’s child could be got into the hospital. The note was written and signed by a Mr. Batson in Mr. Springfield’s presence, and by his order. It was given to witness for his vote in favour of Mr. Foster at the election of sheriff in 1832. Witness had never been offered the hospital by any alderman on the other side.
A great deal more evidence was adduced as to notes of admission to the hospital given by both parties. The last part of the inquiry was the most important, relating as it did to the effect of local elections on the trade of the city.
J. J. Gurney, Esq., said, “I can assure the commissioners that they have no notion of the sin, guilt, wickedness, and poverty, which our local elections inflict upon this city. I wish to add an expression of my conviction, that if the election of magistrates and other officers was altered, the whole city would be benefitted, and no persons more so than the poor freemen. I was lately informed by a principal manufacturer, who has large dealings with the poor, that it was his firm conviction that one single ward election does more harm than all the preaching in all the churches and all the meeting houses in all the year does good; and I believe it to be true. I would observe that I make no distinction of parties; both, to my knowledge, are equally guilty; and whenever the managers find a purse, they fly to it as an eagle does to a carcase.”
Mr. H. Willett was of opinion that the local elections were an injury to the lower orders, notwithstanding the money they received. There was less work done on account of these elections. Party had a very injurious effect on the trade of the city. He thought Norwich suffered from carrying on trade in a different manner to that pursued in other towns. The trade had not paid in previous years, and capital was not employed because it did not pay. The trade was carried on upon such a system that there was no inducement to employ capital. An open rate of wages would cause capital to be more beneficially employed. A great deal of capital had been lost to the city. At that time there was less capital employed in this city than in any manufacturing town of its size in the kingdom. He thought the city had been brought into this state by a fixed rate of wages, and the trade had been gradually leaving the city for years. The fixed rate operated against the workmen, because it prevented their being employed regularly. In consequence of this small capitals were employed. The men thought they would be injured by a fluctuating scale, but he believed the contrary. While the country generally was never more flourishing, the city was never in a worse state. Manufacturers feared so much annoyance, that they would not risk altering the present system. Many influential men were of his opinion as to the fixed rate of wages, but dared not avow it, lest they should lose their political influence. He dared not adopt the varied rate. He did not choose to subject himself to the consequences. The weavers were the only operatives who had a fixed rate. He believed that a fixed rate was kept up by municipal elections, because the leading men were afraid of losing their influence. Most of the influential men were unconnected with manufactures. He believed politics to be the first consideration with all of them. He believed that the apprehension of violence deterred all the manufacturers from attempting to alter the fixed rate of wages; but wages were reduced, or else the whole trade would have left the city. This caused such a disturbance that he dared not go home. The civil power was not sufficiently strong at the time, and the Dragoons were called out to enable him to go home. His warehouse was attacked, and his windows were broken. The magistrates rendered all the assistance in their power, and measures were adopted to prevent any further injury. His premises were guarded by special constables for two or three weeks.
Mr. Wright, one of the largest manufacturers of the city, said he was attacked in consequence of his reducing wages. Vitriol was thrown on his face, by which he lost the sight of one of his eyes. A majority of the manufacturers considered a reduction of wages to be necessary, but some of them became alarmed and did not acknowledge it. The reduction prevented a further decrease of a declining trade. But for the reduction there would have been a greater decline of the trade. Formerly the trade was very flourishing when there was a fixed rate of wages, but that was when there was a great demand for Norwich crapes, then very much worn for mourning.
Mr. John Francis, a manufacturer, said he did not quite agree with Mr. Willett. He did not think a fixed scale of wages advisable; but they were not in a condition to alter it. He thought the alteration would create more strife between masters and men. He considered a fixed scale to be a disadvantage to the men, but it was not too high. He believed that the local elections prevented capital being employed, and disunited the people. But for these local elections there would have been more trade. Both parties had united in promoting one establishment, but six such mills would not supply all the yarns wanted for Norwich manufactures.
Mr. John Athow regarded the local elections as the cause of the ruin of the city, as far as such ruin had taken place; as ruinous both to property and morals. The mode in which the elections were then conducted had contributed to the poverty and depravity of the city. He believed that the streets were in a more disgraceful state than in any other town, from what he had seen, and from what he had heard from commercial men visiting Norwich.
Mr. R. M. Bacon, then editor of the Norwich Mercury, believed that the prosperity of the city and private intercourse were all poisoned by the party spirit engendered by frequent municipal elections.
Mr. J. W. Robberds, a manufacturer, connected with the corporation from 1807 till 1827, said that during that period he had seen the working of the municipal system, and witnessed the strife of parties. He believed that by the contests in the different wards the character of the whole population of the city had been greatly deteriorated; that a great depravity among the lower classes had been produced; and that the character of the whole corporation had been affected. He knew that individuals had entered the corporation, not from any consideration of public duty, but to serve their own private interests.
During the inquiry of the commissioners, evidence was taken as to the general election of the previous year.
Thomas Rust stated, “Mr. Grimmer, in order to induce me to vote for Stormont and Scarlett, offered to pay me £50 down, and to procure me £50 of the city money after Christmas. He promised distinctly to procure the city money. I have taken an active part at general elections. I believe there was great bribery at the last election for members of parliament. I do not think there was any bribery previous to the last election. I do not know any instance of it. I saw some bribery at the last general election. I was up two nights working for the party. I never had money offered to me at local elections, but I was offered £100 at the last general election to go out and buy votes. The proposition was made by two leading partizans of Stormont and Scarlett. One of the parties produced a large quantity of promissory notes. I told him that he was playing a dangerous game. The partizan said ‘Can’t I lend money to whom I like?’ I replied, ‘I think not; it depends on the conditions.’ The gentleman who made the proposition said, “This is the way we do business.” The proposers were not members of the corporation. They went away and called again. One of them pulled out a large bag of sovereigns, and said he would not only lend me £100, but give it to me to join the party, and to do what I could in the Northern ward. They declared more than once that they were determined to buy it. They were guardians of the poor. There was no distinction as to the voters to be bought; freemen as well as others.”
Henry Bush said, “Alderman Turner authorized me to give £6 to a voter, to vote for Lord Stormont and Sir James Scarlett, and said that was the most money they were then giving. I would not take the money as I said it was not enough.”
Mr. Alderman Turner declared on oath that the statement was false.
Mr. John Hayes said, “On the second day of the last general election, Mr. George Liddell gave me three sovereigns for my vote, but never told me in which interest I was to vote. Mr. Wortley, one of the common council, also gave me three sovereigns to vote in the interest of Stormont and Scarlett. I took the sovereigns but voted in the Whig interest, and carried the money to the committee and gave it to Mr. Beare and Mr. Springfield. It was returned to me in four months afterwards.”
Mr. Wortley denied the statement, but several persons were named who were present when Mr. Wortley paid the money.
Mr. Cozens was examined as to the evidence which had been given before the House of Commons’ committee by Mr. W. J. U. Browne, then sheriff, who when asked whether there was any committee for conducting the election of Lord Stormont and Sir James Scarlett, replied, “Certainly not;” and the manuscript was produced of a letter which appeared in the Mercury, in answer to one sent out by Mr. Robberds, in which Mr. Browne spoke of “the committee for conducting the election,” and signed himself as chairman.
Mr. J. Francis mentioned circumstances to prove that there was a committee, and produced a note.
Mr. William Cooper, deposed, “There was no formal committee. If anybody had asked him for a committee man, he could not have stated one. He should say the whole party formed the committee. He was active during the election, but he was not aware that he belonged to any committee.”
Commissioner Buckle:—“We have a letter in Mr. Browne’s own handwriting, in which he states that the committee was not dissolved, and he signs himself chairman.”
Mr. Cooper observed, “Mr. Browne has given his own explanation of that. I am not prepared to give any other interpretation to the circumstance. I have given my opinion and my belief as to the existence of the committee.”