Commissioner Long said, “I have no doubt, Mr. Cooper, you have spoken perfectly correct. At some elections there are committees, and at others it is thought better to avoid them.”
After the prolonged inquiry, a special meeting of the corporate body was held on January 9th, 1834, to determine what should be done in consequence of the course pursued by the commissioners. A great deal of virtuous indignation was expressed, and it was resolved—
“That it is the confirmed opinion of this assembly, that this corporation would have been perfectly justified in refusing their sanction to the attendance of their members and officers, and in declining to allow the production of their charters and muniments before the commissioners, considering themselves well advised in regarding the commission as an assumption of power contrary to law, and as an exercise of prerogative, totally at variance with those constitutional principles which, in defining the limits of regal authority, guarantee alike the public rights and the private of the subject.”
“That on these grounds, and influenced solely by a strong sense of duty, the assembly of the 15th November last, recorded their protest against a commission so dangerous in precedent, so menacing to the privileges of chartered institutions, and so hostile to the cause of civil liberty. Yet, at the same time, animated with reverential attachment to the king, unwilling to be deficient in proper respect towards functionaries acting in the sovereign’s name, and above all being unconscious of having, either in a corporate or magisterial capacity, done any act calculated to prejudice the interests of the city, or to bring discredit on themselves as a body, the assembly of the 15th November last, ordered that the town clerk and other officers should give the fullest documentary information for which the commissioners might think fit to call.”
“That this corporation not only by such order, but also by subsequently permitting oral evidence to be given by their members and officers, now feel themselves the more imperatively called upon to express their mingled sentiments of regret and disapproval at the course of examination pursued, an examination governed by no rules of evidence recognised in any English courts of law, but carried on in a manner irregular, vague, and arbitrary, precluding the slightest hope of arrival at such a conclusion as can possibly conduce to the ends of truth and justice, still less such as can prove congenial to the good feelings of any well-regulated, candid, and impartial mind.”
“That this assembly, considering that the great mass of information received by the commissioners, emanated from the most decided and unscrupulous partizans; that many of them were intimately connected with, and implicated in the transactions to which allusions were made; that those allusions involved charges against highly respected and honourable individuals, since deceased, whose representatives had no means of refuting the aspersions cast upon their memories; that many also of those who came forward as the most material witnesses to impugn the conduct and character of the corporate body, stand self-convicted as the active unblushing agents of gross corruption, and by their own admissions have proved themselves unworthy of credit—considering all these things, and looking moreover to the incontrovertible fact, that not one farthing of the corporate funds has been either appropriated to electioneering purposes or diverted from its originally destined and legitimate, object”—
“Do PROTEST against any report being made by the municipal commissioners respecting the corporation of Norwich, based on statements so utterly unfit to justify parliament in legislating on so important a subject, and do most respectfully towards the crown, but with firmness and fidelity to the obligation of their oaths as corporators, deem it their duty to resist every attempt to exact from them a surrender of the charters of the city and, therewith, of the rights and privileges of the freemen of Norwich.”
“That this assembly invite the various corporations throughout the kingdom to make common cause with them in endeavouring by every lawful and constitutional means of resistance to defeat any design that may be in contemplation for wresting from them their ancient charters, franchises, and liberties.”
A committee was appointed for this purpose, and to devise means for protecting the charters, rights, and privileges of the corporation. But all this opposition proved to be of no avail, and the Municipal Reform Act came into operation in 1835.
1835. In January, 1835, the number of registered voters was 4018. At the election in this month, the bribery oath was administered to every voter. Sir James Scarlett, who had represented the city in parliament from 1832 to 1834, on being made Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer, was raised to the peerage by the title of Baron Abinger of Abinger, in the county of Surrey, and of the city of Norwich. He took for his motto, “Stat viribis suis,” and on application to the corporation, was permitted to use the two angels, supporters to the city arms, as supporters to his own.
On January 28th, the first conversazione of the Norfolk and Norwich Museum was held, and was well attended. On the 27th and 28th, a dinner was given to the electors who voted for the defeated candidates, Messrs. Harbord and Martin, at the late election. About 1000 dined on the first day.
March 23rd. A meeting of the hand-loom weavers was held in the Cellar House, at St. Martin’s at Oak, to petition the legislature to establish local boards of trade.
In April an alteration was made in the conveyance of letters to and from London, being transmitted by the Ipswich instead of the Newmarket Mail, by which means the citizens got their letters earlier. On the third of this month the mayor and corporation waited on Lord Abinger, at the lodgings of the judges, with an address of congratulation on his first visit to the city in his judicial capacity.
June 16th. William Moore, Esq., was sworn into office as mayor of the city. This was the last Guild day under the old corporation. It was celebrated with all the customary civic splendour. The Latin speech was delivered at the porch of the Free School by Master Chambers, son of John Chambers, Esq., of the Close, and he was presented with books to the value of £5 5s., as was also Master Norgate, the orator of the preceding year. At the dinner in St. Andrew’s Hall about 800 ladies and gentlemen sat down to a sumptuous repast.
July 14th. A meeting of the freemen was held in St. Andrew’s Hall to petition parliament to preserve to them and their children the privileges they had so long enjoyed, but they soon lost their exclusive privilege of voting for members of the corporation. The Municipal Reform Bill passed on September 8th, and received the royal assent on the following day. On Sunday, September 27th, the mayor and corporation attended divine service in the Cathedral for the last time under the old charters. The Hon. and Very Rev. the Dean (Dr. Pellew) preached the funeral sermon of the old corporation.
Michaelmas day this year passed over without the customary ceremony, owing to the new Municipal Act coming into force. From 1403 it had been customary to swear the sheriffs into office on that day, and for many years they had given inauguration dinners. Mr. Winter, the last speaker of the old corporation, was presented with a handsome piece of plate by that body on October 21st; and at a special assembly held on December 17th, a vote of thanks was passed to the mayor, William Moore, Esq. This was the very last meeting of the old corporation under the ancient charters of the city.
On December 26th, the day fixed by the Municipal Act, the first election of councillors took place under the new law.
1836. January 1st. T. O. Springfield, Esq., was chosen the first mayor of the new corporation. He had been a very active partizan in the Liberal interest. He was a member of the council nearly all his long life; his influence was very great in promoting the return of candidates of his own party. On the occasion of his going out of office, a dinner was given to him in St. Andrew’s Hall. About 600 sat down to a sumptuous banquet.
March 1st. The new police, eighteen in number, made their first appearance under Chief Constable Yarington.
On September 20th, 21st, and 22nd, the Norfolk and Norwich Musical Festival was held in St. Andrew’s Hall, when the concerts were well attended, and realised a large sum for the charities.
December 1st. S. Bignold, Esq., was the chief promoter of the Norwich Yarn Company, which had a large capital, the whole of which was lost to the shareholders. On the occasion of laying the first stone of the yarn factory, the pageant in honour of “Bishop Blaize” was revived, on December 1st, 1836. The whole affair was cleverly got up, and admirably conducted. The procession having completed a tour of the city, returned to St. Edmund’s, whence they proceeded to the site of the new building, where S. Bignold, Esq., laid the first stone. This being done, the procession set out to St. Andrew’s Hall, where 900 persons, men, women, and children, sat down to an excellent dinner.
Queen Victoria was proclaimed here in the usual manner, on June 23rd, 1837, amid great rejoicing. On Thursday, August 17th, Dr. Stanley was enthroned in the Cathedral; he was the sixty-sixth bishop of the diocese, and the thirty-third since the reformation. After the installation about a hundred of the gentry, clergy, and laity dined at the Norfolk Hotel. This bishop was a great promoter of the education of the poor. An episcopal chapel was opened in Heigham on August 10th, and afterwards consecrated by the bishop under the name of “Trinity Chapel.” His lordship also consecrated the new church at Catton.
1838. January 3rd. A meeting was held in St. Andrew’s Hall to petition parliament to abolish the apprenticeship of negroes in the colonies. On the 5th the new district schools were opened in St. Augustine’s.
On July 11th, a very numerous meeting of the camlet weavers was held, for the purpose of resisting the proposed reduction of wages. About this time some differences existed between the men and their employers respecting wages. Col. Harvey was requested to mediate between them, and he did so, but without any good result. The city was much disturbed in consequence of these disagreements.
1839. On May 18th, a meeting was held at the Norfolk Hotel to consider a bill about to be presented to parliament for the improvement of the city, and to give the citizens an opportunity of objecting to any of its clauses. On June 19th this bill passed, but very little was done under it in the way of improvement. A great part of the city remained undrained, and the pavements continued in a bad state.
On August 16th, the Norfolk and Norwich Art Union opened their exhibition of pictures at the Bazaar in St. Andrew’s. About 400 pictures were exhibited, some of them of great merit.
About this time much excitement prevailed in the city respecting the designs of the Chartists, who, although they were not numerous, were considered dangerous, as they were known to possess arms, many guns and pikes having been taken from them by the police. On Sunday, August 18th, the Chartists attended divine service at the Cathedral, when the bishop made a spirited appeal to them. Many meetings of the Chartists were held, and exciting harangues were delivered, advocating the five points of the charter, including universal suffrage, and vote by ballot, which, some of their opponents said, meant “Universal suffering, and vote by bullet.”
1840. On February 10th, Queen Victoria’s wedding day was kept as a holiday, and addresses were adopted, to be presented to Her Majesty and Prince Albert. The poor of the various parishes were substantially regaled, and the citizens were admitted free to the pit and gallery of the theatre. On many subsequent occasions, on the birth of a prince or princess, the citizens have shown their loyalty by presenting addresses of congratulation.
On February 25th, a meeting was held in St. Andrew’s Hall to consider the necessity of a bill then before parliament, for “repealing and altering the existing paving acts,” and to oppose the same, if necessary: when a petition was adopted to be presented to the House of Commons, praying that the bill might not pass. The Marquis of Douro presented the petition.
On June 15th, at a meeting in the Guildhall, addresses of congratulation were agreed on, to be presented to the Queen and Prince Albert, on their happy escape from an attempt at assassination.
The first annual meeting of the Norfolk and Norwich Protestant Association was held on October 15th in St. Andrew’s Hall, when 2000 persons were present. Addresses were delivered advocating the Protestant cause. Subsequently many similar meetings were held in this city. The speakers always raised the cry of “no popery,” explaining that they meant, “No withholding of the bible from the people; no worshipping of God in a dead language; no bowing down before images as helps to devotion; no divine homage offered to a human being, though the mother of our Lord; no prayers to saints; no priests pretending to offer the sacrifice of Christ continually in the mass; no polluting confessional; no persecuting inquisition; no Jesuits with their hidden works of darkness; no licenses for doing evil that good may come; no absolution for the worst of crimes; no power of a priesthood over courts of law; no canon law to overrule the statutes of the realm; no cursing with bell, book, and candle; no enforced celibacy; no nunneries where women are buried alive; no convents for lazy, vicious monks; no masses for the dead; no fictitious purgatory; no power of priests to forgive sins,” &c., &c
1841. In June this year the census of the united kingdom was taken, and the result, as regarded this city, showed but a small increase of the population, the total number being 62,294, while in 1831 the number was 61,304. The number of hand-loom weavers had been greatly diminished by the competition of steam power. Many of them left the city, and others went into the boot and shoe trade, which had now become of some importance.
This year many political meetings were held in the city, of Tories, Whigs, Radicals, and Chartists. The prospect of a general election kept the city in a state of great excitement. The leaders of the two former parties tried to prevent a repetition of such scenes as had taken place, by a compromise, which was a most hateful thing to the freemen, and working men generally. When the election came on in June, Mr. Dover, a Chartist, nominated Mr. Eagle, a Chartist, of Suffolk, and afterwards, it was said, received a bribe of £50 to withdraw the nomination. In consequence of this, a riotous mob assembled in the Market Place, and Dover had to be protected by the police from their violence, for if they had got hold of him, they seemed as though they would have torn him in pieces. On the following day the mob having learned that Dover was at a public house in St. George’s Colegate, went there and dragged him thence, threatening to throw him into the river. He was much injured, and would probably have lost his life but for the timely arrival of the police.
1843. On August 9th, a dreadful storm of hail, rain, wind, and thunder, passed over the city and county, and did immense damage to property, especially to the growing crops. Parochial subscriptions were raised to the amount of £5,622, and private subscriptions £4,391, towards compensating the sufferers for their losses. An immense number of windows were broken by the hail in the city, and many places were flooded.
1844. This year the railway was opened between Yarmouth and Norwich, and in the next year the line was opened from Norwich to Brandon, simultaneously with the Eastern Counties line from London to Ely. This caused an entire change in the mode of travelling, and in the carrying trade of the district. All the old stage coaches were of course discontinued.
1846. About the year 1846, the high rates in Norwich became the subject of complaint and discussion. A good deal of alarm was excited in the city in consequence of a proposal of Sir Robert Peel, then prime minister, to alter the law of settlement, so that all persons who had resided five years in any place should have a permanent settlement there. As many families belonging to the county parishes were then resident in Norwich, it was feared that they would become chargeable to the city and be a permanent burden on the rate-payers. This apprehension proved to be well founded, for after the passing of the Poor Removal Act, hundreds of county families did become chargeable to the city, and have been so ever since.
Mr. G. Gedge, of Catton, instituted inquiries on the subject; and being a member of the court of guardians, often called attention to it. He was, in fact, the first in this city to advocate a general or national rate as the most effectual remedy for the evils of the then existing system of rating. He spared neither time, trouble, nor expense in promoting his views, which were generally approved by the more influential citizens. He employed Mr. Hutchinson, an eminent statist in London, on the recommendation of Mr. Wakley, to collect information respecting the gross inequalities of the system of rating all over England, and this information was published and circulated in a valuable work, from which nearly all the statistics on the subject have been derived and quoted by members of Parliament.
Mr. Gedge introduced the question of a national rate at many meetings of the court of guardians in 1846. He showed that the poor rates then collected annually amounted to about five millions. Nearly the same sum was raised by the property and income tax; and it followed that if only those were rated who paid the latter tax, the charge throughout England and Wales for the support of the poor would not amount to more than sevenpence in the pound. But including all the parties not then chargeable to the property and income tax, and who would be fairly liable to the poor rates, the annual rate would not amount to more than half that sum. This would be a most important difference to the great mass of the rate-payers, whose payments to the relief of the poor would be greatly diminished, whilst they would have the pleasure of knowing that the poor would be better cared for, and that those comforts which they had a right to expect, as producers of wealth, would be placed more immediately within their reach.
Mr. Gedge explained that, as all the parishes in the city were incorporated in regard to the relief of the poor, a general rate being raised from all those parishes for that purpose, his proposition was that this general mode of rating should be extended over the whole country, and that a general rate should be raised to be applied for the relief of the poor wherever they were located. He showed that if each parish in this city supported its own poor, the rating would be very unequal, and some of the richest parishes would pay least, while the poorest and more populous would pay most. To prevent this inequality, all the parishes had been incorporated. This had been found to be a great improvement, and it should be further extended. Many persons, fund-holders and others, living in lodgings, were exempted from poor rates. Many large establishments in Cheapside and the middle of London paid no poor rates, because the poor did not live in those localities. Many persons living in fashionable towns also escaped poor rates, for the same reason, while the industrious and the middle classes had to bear the burden. He therefore maintained that there should be a national rate.
Most of the members of the court of guardians concurred with these views, and ultimately a petition to Parliament was adopted in favour of a national rate. The petition was duly presented in the House of Commons.
On Wednesday, June 10th, 1846, an important meeting of the rate-payers of the city was held in the sessions court, at the Guildhall, to petition Parliament against the Poor Law Removal Act, which had been lately introduced into the House of Commons. The mayor, J. Betts, Esq., presided and opened the proceedings. Mr. S. Bignold, Mr. T. Brightwell, Mr. J. G. Johnson, Mr. E. Willett, Mr. A. A. H. Beckwith, Mr. Banks, Mr. Newbegin, Mr. Hardy, & Mr. G. Gedge, addressed the meeting in support of resolutions, and a petition was adopted against the proposed alteration in the Law of Settlement and the Poor Law Removal Bill. Mr. G. Gedge moved a resolution,—
“That this meeting is decidedly of opinion that the only effectual alteration of the law of settlement, by which free scope would be given to the labour of the people, would be to abolish the present law of settlement and rating, and to substitute a general national tax on real and personal property, and that a petition founded on this resolution be presented to the House of Commons.”
He showed the very injurious operation of the law then existing, and expressed his belief that a national rate, if obtained, would prove a great benefit to the city. Mr. Sheriff Colman seconded the resolution, which was carried unanimously.
After this meeting, two petitions were presented to Parliament, from this city, in favour of a national rate; one from the court of guardians, and one from the citizens at large. These petitions, however, had no effect, and the Poor Law Removal Bill was passed into a law. The consequence was, that about 1500 families belonging to county parishes, who had lived five years in the city, obtained a settlement in it, and most of them soon applied for relief. This greatly increased the expenditure for the relief of the poor.
At the monthly meeting of the court of guardians, held on December 1st, 1846, Mr. G. Gedge moved a resolution of which he had given notice at the previous court, in respect to a national rate, and he urged the usual arguments in favour of that measure. He wished the support of the court to a petition to be presented to Parliament during the following session, for the total repeal of the mode of rating to the relief of the poor, then in operation, and the substitution of a national rate. He believed that public opinion was now fixed on this question, and that a national rate must come. A petition was adopted, nem con.
1847. A meeting of the city operatives was held on Wednesday, March 23rd, in St. Andrew’s Hall, for the purpose of petitioning Parliament to abolish the law of settlement then in operation, and to establish a national poor rate. The meeting was numerously attended by working men, who manifested a great interest in the question. Several of them delivered speeches against the law of settlement and in favour of a national rate, and a petition to Parliament was adopted. Mr. Gedge spoke at some length in favour of the measure, which he believed would be carried.
A public meeting of the citizens was held on December the 2nd, 1847, to consider the evils arising from the alteration of the law of settlement. The mayor (G. L. Coleman, Esq.) presided, and many influential gentlemen addressed the meeting in support of resolutions deprecating the alteration in the law, and in favour of a more equitable system than that in operation. Sir S. M. Peto, M.P. for the city expressed his concurrence, and the resolution was carried unanimously. Subsequently, several meetings were held in Norwich in favour of a national rate. During the same year, also, an association was formed in London, having the same object in view; and, eventually, the movement resulted in the passing of an Act of Parliament, by which a union poor rate was established in every county in England. This has proved to be a vast improvement of the old system, and a great advance in the direction of a national rate, but still the poor rate is levied on real property only. The most equitable system would be for every man to pay according to his ability, whether he be a landowner, a shipowner, a houseowner, a fund-holder, or an artisan.
Before the Removal Act passed, the Norwich guardians were quite aware of the effect it would have on the city. In order to prove that their apprehensions were well founded, they caused a census to be taken in the city and county of those paying a yearly rental of £6 and under, and an inquiry to be instituted as to the settlement of the tenants of those houses. They found, after a full investigation, that more than a third of the houses were occupied by persons not having a settlement in Norwich, but in other districts. The operation of the act was to throw the expense of the maintenance of such persons on the city, at an estimated cost of £5000 yearly. This was represented to the government, who paid no attention to it, and the Act passed nevertheless.
In the autumn of 1848, the Royal Agricultural Society of England held a meeting in this city. The exhibition of stock and implements took place in a large field near the Newmarket Road, and attracted thousands of visitors. The trials of implements took place on land near the city. Lectures were delivered by the Rev. E. Sidney and others at the Shirehall. The members of the Society and their friends dined together on two occasions, in St. Andrew’s Hall. Addresses were delivered by Professor Sedgwick and other eminent men on various subjects. S. Bignold, Esq., was mayor during this year.
Late on the night of November 28th, 1848, the city was startled by the intelligence of the murder of Isaac Jermy, Esq., the Recorder of Norwich, and his son. His son’s wife (Mrs. Jermy Jermy), and her servant, Eliza Chastney, were also fired at and wounded by the same murderous hand. The first news of these murders and attempted murders excited universal horror. They appeared to be so inhuman and atrocious, that public feeling was wrought up to the highest pitch; and all the reports published in the local and metropolitan journals were read with the greatest avidity. James Blomfield Rush, a farmer, well known in Norfolk, and a tenant under Mr. Jermy, was at once suspected and apprehended. He was examined before the magistrates, committed, tried, found guilty, and executed. We give a short account of this terrible tragedy.
Mr. Jermy, with his wife and family, lived at a mansion called Stanfield Hall, about two miles distant from Wymondham, and Rush lived at a neighbouring farm house, known as Potash Farm. The Preston family, of which the recorder was a descendant, originally came from the village of Preston, in the hundred of Babergh, Suffolk, and settled at Beeston St. Lawrence, in the hundred of Tunstead, in Norfolk. In 1837, the Rev. G. Preston died, leaving his son, the recorder, heir to Stanfield and his other entailed property. The recorder, previous to his father’s death, was called Mr. Preston; but soon after that event, he took the necessary steps for complying with the stipulation in the will of Mr. Wm. Jermy, from whom the property had descended, that the possessor of the estate should assume his name and arms, and accordingly he took the name and arms of Jermy by license from the crown. He was a county magistrate and one of the chairmen at quarter sessions, recorder for Norwich, and a director of the Norwich Union Insurance Office. Indeed, he had been all his life closely connected with the city.
There had been some disputes relative to the Stanfield property. It was said that one of the male relatives of William Jermy had disposed of his reversionary interest in these estates for the trifling consideration of £20. This occurred in the year 1754. In June 1838, when the Rev. George Pearson’s furniture and library at Stanfield Hall were advertised for sale, a person named Thomas Jermy, a grandson of John Jermy, with a cousin of his, named John Larner, put in a claim to the estate, and served notices both upon Mr. Jermy and the auctioneer to stop the sale. Larner then attempted to obtain possession of the hall, but was shortly afterwards ejected by Rush, (who was then acting as bailiff for Mr. Jermy,) with a party of labourers. Larner then cut down some timber and carted it away; and he and his party were apprehended for the offence, but he himself was acquitted, though his accomplices were convicted in penalties. Shortly afterwards placards were posted in the neighbourhood, stating their intention to obtain forcible possession. This they attempted to do, but they were apprehended and committed to the assizes. They pleaded guilty, and were sentenced to various periods of imprisonment.
Rush, being aware of all these circumstances, may have thought that he could perpetrate the murder in disguise, and that suspicion would rest on those who claimed the estate. It was stated and believed that he was a near relation to the recorder, who, when he came into possession of his estates, employed Rush as his steward, but rescinded his leases, having found that they were illegal. This created the first ill feeling between the parties. The recorder granted new leases to Rush, but, as the latter alleged, at higher rent. Rush soon afterwards took the Potash Farm in Hethel, under Mr. Calver; this farm adjoining the Stanfield estate, and being very convenient for his occupation. It being for sale, Mr. Jermy wished to become the purchaser, and he authorised Rush, who fixed the value at £3,500, to buy it for him. Rush attended the sale, and having bid £3,500 for Mr. Jermy, bade £3,750 for himself. The recorder, though much annoyed by this transaction at first, was induced to lend Rush the money, on mortgage, to complete the purchase. The equity of redemption, or the ownership, therefore belonged to him. A number of mortgage deeds were executed, the last of which was dated September 28th, 1844, and it recited several prior mortgages.
The effect of it was, that a sum of £5000 in all was charged upon the estate, by way of mortgage, in favour of the recorder, and it contained a provision that the money was to remain on the security of that estate until the 30th November, 1848. The interest on the £5000 was 4 per cent. or £200 per annum, and Rush became tenant so as to enable the recorder to distrain for rent. Rush now held three farms, and in October, 1847, he was in arrear of rent for the Stanfield farm, and the recorder put in some distresses. Rush being ejected went to live at Potash farm house. Mr. Jermy also brought an action against Rush for breach of covenants. This action was tried at the March assizes, 1848, and it, as well as the previous distresses, seemed to have occasioned rancourous feelings in Rush’s mind towards Mr. Jermy. He published a pamphlet which professed to be a report of the trial, calling Mr. Jermy a villain, and stating that he had no right to Stanfield Hall. This showed that Rush cherished malignant feelings towards his victim.
Rush appears to have for some time premeditated the murder of Mr. Jermy and his whole family; and he ultimately resolved to carry out a deep-laid scheme, both of murder and robbery. He got a young woman named Emily Sandford into his service as governess, and seduced her. He then employed her to draw up some quasi legal documents, as she could write like a lawyer’s clerk. According to one of these documents, signed “Isaac Jermy,” that gentleman gave up all claim on Rush, if the latter gave up all papers and documents relating to the Stanfield estate. The signature was of course forged. After the murder these documents were found concealed under the floor of a bed-room in Rush’s house, ready to be produced had he escaped suspicion.
Rush’s conduct before the murders had been observed. He had taken every precaution to throw off suspicion. During the latter part of November, he had been in the habit of going out at night, pretending to be on the look-out for poachers. He ordered a quantity of straw to be littered down from his homestead to the fields towards Stanfield Hall. A portion of the path which had never before been littered with straw, was then littered by his direction, and the straw ceased where the green sward began, so that he could walk from his house towards the recorder’s mansion, without any danger of his footsteps being traced. Before November 28th, he had caused everybody to leave his house except Emily Sandford and a lad named Savory. On that day he returned home about 5 p.m., and asked when the dinner would be ready. Emily Sandford said it would be ready soon, upon which he remarked, “There is just time for me to go into the garden and fire off my gun;” and he went into the garden and discharged his gun accordingly. This was intended to account for his gun having been recently used. He had bought a double-barrelled gun in London the last time he was there. After tea he appeared to be extremely agitated. He went up-stairs to his bedroom and put on a disguise; one part of which was for the whole person, being in fact a widow’s dress, which was quite new. Another part was a black crape bonnet with a double frill hanging by it; and the frill rendered it difficult for any one to discern the wearer’s features. He enveloped himself with a large cloak, armed himself with his double-barrelled gun, and went out to do his work of murder between seven and eight o’clock. Nobody saw him leave the house. The night was dark and windy and well suited for the deeds of an assassin.
Soon after eight o’clock, the recorder’s dinner being over, he was sitting alone in the dining-room, little dreaming of the doom that awaited him and his son. His son and his son’s wife, who had retired to the drawing-room, were about to partake of tea and to amuse themselves with a game of picquet, the cards being on the table. Mr. Jermy was in the habit of going outside the hall after dinner, and on this evening he left the dining-room and walked to a porch in front of the mansion. Rush, who knew the recorder’s habits and expected him to come out, was standing near the porch in disguise holding his loaded gun in his hand. As soon as Mr. Jermy reached the porch, Rush presented his gun, fired, and shot him through the heart. He fell backwards, groaned, and instantly expired. Rush immediately ran to the side door, entered, and proceeded along the passages leading to the staircase hall. He passed close to the butler, who, affrighted at the appearance of an armed man in disguise, retired to his pantry. Rush passed on to the door opening into the staircase hall. Mr. Jermy, jun., who had heard the report of a gun, opened the door at that very moment. They met; Rush drew back, presented the gun, and fired; and young Mr. Jermy fell dead in the hall. The assassin then passed on into the dining-room, no doubt with the intention of exterminating the whole family. Mrs. Jermy, still in the drawing-room, on hearing the second report, immediately went into the hall, and passed over the dead body of her husband. Eliza Chastney, one of the female servants, on hearing her mistress screaming for help, ran up to her, and holding her by the waist cried out, “My dear mistress, what is the matter?” At this moment, Rush came out of the dining-room, and seeing the two women opposite to him, levelled his weapon and fired twice, wounding Mrs. Jermy in the arm and her servant in the leg. The murderer then made his escape by the side door, leaving death, misery, and woe behind him. He did not escape, however, before some of the servants had made their observations of him. Eliza Chastney had marked the man, and she afterwards identified him at the trial. Strange to say, several persons were standing at the gate close to the bridge, heard the reports of a gun, and heard the alarm bell ringing, but did not imagine that anything serious had happened. Some people are so stolid that an earthquake would scarcely arouse them. A man who had been employed in the stables, hearing the reports, thought that the hall was attacked by a band of ruffians, went to the back, swam over the moat which surrounds the hall, and ran to the house of a neighbouring farmer (Mr. Colman), and having obtained a horse rode to Wymondham, spreading the alarm as he went.
In the meantime, the scene at Stanfield Hall was one of utter dismay. The cook had fled to the coach house with little Miss Jermy, the daughter of Mr. Jermy, jun. The cowardly butler, who might have seized the assassin in the passage, rushed to Mr. Gower’s, another farmer, for assistance. The maid servants conveyed their wounded mistress upstairs to bed. Eliza Chastney was lying wounded on the ground; Mr. Jermy, sen., was lying dead in the porch, everybody being then uncertain as to his fate; and Mr. Jermy, jun., was lying dead in the hall. Mr. Colman, Mr. Gower, and Mr. Gower’s two sons, having received some vague information, had hurried to the hall, and were the first who discovered what had happened. The servants were all panic-stricken.
What was the conduct of the assassin after the murders? Emily Sandford, whom he had seduced, though at first she told a false story, revealed it all in the course of the inquest and the examinations before the magistrates. Between nine and ten o’clock on that same night, Rush’s knock was heard at his own door. Emily Sandford went to the door to open it, but without a light, and she did not see him come in. He went upstairs to his own room, put off his disguise which was found there by the police, and in a short time came down again without his boots and coat. He told Emily Sandford to make haste and put out her fire and go to bed; and before he left her he said, “If any inquiry is made about me, say I was not out more than ten minutes.” She followed, after she had put out the fire, and asked him where she should sleep. He told her that she was to sleep in her own room; that being the first night she had done so for a long time. She went to bed, and between two and three o’clock in the morning Rush, who had heard voices outside, rapped at the door of her room and desired her to let him in; and she did so. He came trembling to her bedside and said, “Now you be firm, and remember that I was out only ten minutes.” She was extremely agitated and inquired what was the matter; but he would only tell her that she might hear of something in the morning. Taking hold of his hand she observed that he trembled violently. Next morning the police, who had watched the house all night, apprehended him, and on the same day he was examined before the magistrates. Emily Sandford also underwent a lengthened examination, and persisted in stating that Rush was out only a quarter of an hour on the previous night; but at the inquest subsequently held by Mr. Press at Wymondham, she confessed that her first statement was false, admitting that Rush did not return home till after nine o’clock, and that he told her to say he had been out only ten minutes. She also gave evidence as to all that passed between her and Rush that night, as already related.
On the morning after the murder the police searched Potash farm house, and found two double-barrelled guns in the closet in Rush’s bed-room, but these were not the weapons he used. The gun he had used was afterwards found under a manure heap. In the house the police found a black dress, a grey and black frontlet, female wig, and a long black veil, as for a female head-dress. These were hidden in a closet in Rush’s bed-room. Concealed under the floor of a closet a number of documents were also found, which turned out to be the forged deeds before alluded to. These formed an extraordinary link in the case, and after repeated examinations the prisoner was committed to the assizes for trial. The bodies of his victims were consigned to their last resting place at Wymondham on December 5th, in the presence of a vast concourse of spectators.
The trial of Rush excited universal interest all over England, Scotland, and Ireland. It commenced at the Shirehall, Norwich, on Thursday, March 29th, 1849, before Baron Rolfe. It continued six days, and each day the court was crowded to excess. He was not defended by counsel. Mr. Sergeant Byles stated the case for the prosecution, and then called a number of witnesses who clearly proved the facts. Having in the preceding part of this narrative stated all the particulars, it is unnecessary to give the evidence. The documents which were found in a secret place under the floor of the bed-room closet in the prisoner’s house were produced, and several of them were proved to be forgeries, which, if carried into effect after the recorder’s death, would have placed the prisoner in a very good position with respect to the farms which he occupied, and would have rid him of all his liabilities. A powerful motive for the commission of the murders was therefore apparent. The servants at the hall, who had seen the disguised armed man there, all deposed that they believed the prisoner to be the man, as they had known him before, and as they had recognised him by his height, form, walk, and gait. Eliza Chastney, who had been severely wounded by the assassin, was brought into court on a couch, attended by medical men. When asked if she saw the assassin in court, she pointed to Rush and said, “That is the man.” She had seen him several times at the hall. When he fired at her, she saw the whole form of his head and shoulders, and she knew no one else having a similar appearance. Emily Sandford entered the box apparently in a weak state. She was examined at great length, and she stated with much clearness all that had passed between her and Rush and other parties in reference to the documents produced. She also gave a full account of the prisoner’s conduct on the night of the 28th, as already narrated.
When the prisoner commenced his cross-examination of this witness there was a profound silence in the court, all present being anxious to know how he would treat the unfortunate female whom he had seduced, and who had given evidence against him. He appeared to be under the influence of strong emotion, so much so as at times, as to stifle his utterance; and he was frequently on the verge of bursting into tears, yet he mastered his feelings, and put his questions mildly in an assumed endearing manner, trying to rouse any affection that she might have left for him. She gave her answers in a low tone, and sometimes weeping, which excited the pity of the spectators. Nearly all the questions put by the prisoner were irrelevant to her evidence in chief, but not all the blandishments and frequent adjurations of the questioner could elicit answers to suit his purpose. At length he put questions which roused her indignation, and she reproached him for his perfidy in not marrying her as he promised. If he had done so, she could not have given evidence against him. Four days were occupied with the case for the prosecution. On the fifth day the prisoner commenced his defence, and he spoke on that and the following day fourteen hours without making any impression whatever in his favour. He began by admitting a guilty knowledge that something was about to take place in the hall on that night. He said parties had consulted him as to the expediency of taking forcible possession of the hall, as had been done some years before. He advised them not to do so, but still he apprehended that something serious would happen. He left his house at eight or half-past eight o’clock on the night of the murders, and he went to the boundary of his own land. When he got to the fence leading to the hall, he waited a few minutes and thought he would go back as he felt ill, but at that moment he heard the report of a gun or pistol in a direct line from the hall. He then heard two more, and was struck with amazement, as the parties to whom he alluded had always said, if they took firearms it would only be to intimidate, not to use them. He then heard the bell rung violently, and he hastened back to his house as quickly as he could, and he went through the garden into the house. Having given this account of himself on that night, he proceeded to comment on the evidence with a view to show contradictions.
Mr. Sergeant Byles replied, showing that the prisoner had only strengthened the case against him.
The learned judge summed up in a lucid manner, the jury soon returned a verdict of guilty of wilful murder, the prisoner was sentenced to be hung, and the dread sentence was executed on the bridge in front of Norwich Castle on the morning of Saturday, April 21st, in the presence of many thousands of spectators. The unhappy man remained impenitent to the last.
About this time the two parties in the council became nearly equal in numbers, and the Liberals found a difficulty in selecting a mayor and sheriff every year from their own party. They accordingly proposed that each party should nominate a mayor and sheriff alternately. In 1848 S. Bignold, Esq., was nominated a second time, and elected unanimously to serve the office of mayor. From that time to the present the chief magistrate and the sheriff have been selected from each party alternately. This has also led to the members of the various committees being selected so as to represent all parties fairly, and the former exclusive system has been discontinued.